RFC: Role name change

Scott Seago sseago at redhat.com
Tue Feb 21 16:29:08 UTC 2012


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 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