On 02/21/2012 11:04 AM, Kenneth Keiter wrote:
From a user experience standpoint, you're fine here. If everything else is in "<object> user" format, those should be too, unless there's a technical reason (which would be more than a little weird).
I think it's a bit odd, overall, to have the "user" suffix appended to every role name -- isn't it apparent in the UI which user you're connecting with which role, or must there be redundancy?
It's certainly not on every one -- in fact, 'User' is used as opposed to 'Owner' or 'Administrator' or some such. So in this case 'user' is not an example of redundancy -- it indicates a level of access less than that of an owner or admin or similar.
For example, a "Pool User" has access to a pool, can launch deployments, etc but can't edit the pool or see/modify anyone else's instances. A "Pool Owner", however, has full access to the pool -- edit pool properties, start/stop anyone's instances in the pool, etc. Also, it's not <object> user -- the role is "<object-type> user" (or "<object-type> owner", etc., but it's applied to a specific object. i.e. as a user, I may have the "Pool owner" role on "pool1" but "Pool user" role on "pool2" -- the role is defined as "Pool user" not "pool1 user" -- but it's _assigned_ to me on a specific pool -- but I may have different roles on different pools.
Scott
-- Kenneth Keiter Sr. Software Engineer, Cloud BU kenkeiter@redhat.com http://twitter.com/kenkeiter IRC: tigger or tiggerer
On Feb 20, 2012, at 2:50 PM, Jason Guiditta wrote:
Hello list, I was just looking at seeds.rb to see about extracting our role names into i18n files so we can leverage the configuration I added there last week, and noticed what seems to me to be a minor inconsistency. Disregarding role with the name 'Administrator', it seems most of our roles are named: "{object name} user" or "{object name} owner"
There are 2 exceptions I see to this - the Instance and Deployment objects. These both use 'Controller' instead of 'User'.
I would like to propose making those consistent as part of the patch I am working on, unless there is some reason they are like this of which I am unaware. Thoughts?
-j