I'm not sure which service you're talking about. In which category do you see this service?
In the "Avoka" category at the top.
I have LiveCycle Rights Management, Reader Extensions, Digitial Signatures, Output, Forms and Reader Extensions installed. I don't know if it's specific to one of those. I believe I've seen this before in ES too, so I don't think it's specific to ES2.
Rob is right when you go through step by step instruction one of the step mentioned as:
"Configuring the sample:
Note: Before configuring and running this sample, it is necessary to deploy and run the Sample Setup Utility."
The LCA file mentioned (Adobe-Samples-SetupUtility.lca) has different Avoka components, services, process which get deployed during this step.
and the code for Avoka component is not provided ( see AvokaComponent.compjar com.avoka.livecycle.createLocalPrincipal.CreatePrincipleService.class)
May be it is helpful to have one sample (that just depends on all components and modules from Adobe only ) that shows how this task can be achieved without using 'Sample Setup Utility'. (java / orchestration that calls differnt service and produce same exact result that 'Sample Setup Utility' does)
I am following up with the sample team on that one.
Have you got any update on this issue? We're trying to develop a cost estimate and this is an important factor in that estimate.
1 person found this helpful
I did followup but I haven't hear a definit answer.
I think you should treat this component like any other Avoka components. You'll need a license to use it.
I'll let you know if I hear otherwise, but I have a sense this is how it's going to work.
Thanks for the answer Jasmin.
Would you mind logging a bug on this issue? To my mind, there's two possible reasons why these components are included in the samples:
1) Someone goofed. That's OK, mistakes get made however a bug should be logged to remove them.
2) These were included on purpose. That's OK too, but I think some clarification with respect to the licensing conditions is required. In the absence of any documentation to the contrary I believe it's reasonable for a user to assume that they can legitimately use anything that "ships in the box". If that's not the case, then a documentation bug should be logged to make it clear what the licensing restrictions on these components are.