Re: RFC: roles

Dave Page wrote:
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de]
>>Sent: 01 August 2005 14:14
>>To: Dave Page
>>Cc: pgadmin-hackers
>>Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] RFC: roles
>>
>>
>>How ugly! The icon can signal it.
>
>
> Yes, that is preferable, however in most places (ie. combo boxes) the
> icons got lost when pgAdmin 2 was rewritten as pgAdmin 3.
>
>
>>Still questions open:
>>Hierarchical or flat view? Separate grouping for login/nologin roles,
>>roles with/without childs?
>
>
> I think a flat view, as it could get very messy with 1 role being a
> member of more than one other.
>
>
>>Actually, I don't find it good practice to use a role as
>>group and login
>>at the same time. I'd be inclined to name all roles with
>>login without
>>childs a user, the rest role/group, grouping them accordingly.
>
>
> No, I agree it's bad practice, but it might happen (I assume - haven't
> tried it though) as far as I can see from the docs. In fact, they say:
>
> "A role having LOGIN privilege can be thought of as a user", so I think
> we should not count hild roles, and just rely on LOGIN.
>
> Of course, this seems like a good candidate for a guru hint.


So we have:
- Groups/Roles and Users as object collection
- Users will contain all roles with LOGIN
- Groups/Roles the rest
- Both will use common dlgRole dialog, with different checkbox settings
for LOGIN
- NOLOGIN roles (in Groups/Roles) have the group icon
- LOGIN roles without kids (pure users) have user icon
- LOGIN roles with kids ('role-user') have group icon
- Guru hint "bad practice" if a LOGIN role is used as role parent

Agreed?

Regards,
Andreas