RFC: Role name change
Kenneth Keiter
kenkeiter at redhat.com
Tue Feb 21 16:04:27 UTC 2012
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?
--
Kenneth Keiter
Sr. Software Engineer, Cloud BU
kenkeiter at 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
>
More information about the aeolus-devel
mailing list