RFC: Role name change

Kenneth Keiter kenkeiter at redhat.com
Tue Feb 21 16:33:09 UTC 2012


Ah, interesting. We should come up with a way to remove the requirement of having those in the name, in the future, so that we can group them in the UI by type.

Thanks Scott!

On Feb 21, 2012, at 8:29 AM, Scott Seago wrote:

> 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
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

--
Kenneth Keiter
Sr. Software Engineer, Cloud BU
kenkeiter at redhat.com
http://twitter.com/kenkeiter
IRC: tigger or tiggerer






More information about the aeolus-devel mailing list