Re: RFC: roles

> -----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.

/D