On 04/04/12 14:18 -0400, Scott Seago wrote:
On 04/04/2012 02:07 PM, Jason Guiditta wrote:
>On 04/04/12 13:54 -0400, Scott Seago wrote:
>>On 03/30/2012 09:50 AM, Scott Seago wrote:
>>>Rather than paste in the entire text, I'm just linking to the
>>>wiki writeup. Please read the whole thing first and if you want
>>>to comment on anything specific, quote it and comment on this
>>OK I've updated to take into account feedback from Imre, Jan, Jay,
>>In particular, we'll allow both LDAP and Local groups to exist
>>concurrently (subject to config flags, so we can still lock this
>>down to only one type). I've added consideration of dynamic user
>>group lists managed via LDAP queries, but in the 'future plans'
>>section, as it will probably not be included in the initial
>>In addition, I've noted that, subject to availability of a
>>scheduling infrastructure, I'd prefer the background re-sync to
>Scott, couple minor questions/thoughts here:
>* what happens if an ldap usergroup is deleted on a sync (and I
> would assume all permissions for a given user that was in that group
> on any objects they own as well), but nobody else owns those
> objects? For example, Joes group is deleted, and he has some
> deployables he created, and a few running instances. Nobod else has
> access to those objects, so what happens to them (especially the
> running instances)?
So the result would be the same as would happen if an admin had
manually removed the permission records. Taking LDAP out of the mix
(since the same issue would happen with non-LDAP groups) we could
imagine two sorts of cases:
1) group exists and members are removed: As members are removed from a
group, those former members lose access to resources they only had by
virtue of group membership. What happens when an admin removes the
last member of the group? The group still exists, its permission
grants exist, but they don't actually grant any real users access
2) admin deletes a group: In this case, all of the permission records
assigned to the group are removed.
In both cases, we won't touch running instances -- why should we? That
would be like destroying a car just because someone took away the
In addition, recall that (unless someone revoked the permissions) the
user who launched the instances will still have rights, as the user
will be 'instance owner' and 'deployment owner' on the instances and
deployments. Also, the admin will, as always, have access to the
instances to reinstate permissions, etc.
Ok, thanks for the explanation.
>* This is probably out of scope, but I would hope we will include
> task(s) to make whatever controller changes are needed also provide
> an api?
Yes, we should define the API here. We'll need API for
creating/removing/altering groups, and (for local groups)
adding/removing group members.
General question here -- going forward, are "build out API" tasks
going to be done across the board at some point? Also, do we assume
that _every_ new feature we add from now on includes implementing the
basic APIs for the main objects associated with that feature?
I would like for us to assume that any new feature that will get UI
(and perhaps even some that dont) should have api built at the same
time. If that means we need to add separate tasks and get more people
working on the feature together, I think that is ok. And yes, I
believe the intent is to really start to focus on building out api for
everything we already have, the providers/accounts is just the first
>Aside from this, I think you have captured all the bits we have
>discussed, and looks like a pretty workable plan to me.