Re: RFC: roles

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de]
> Sent: 01 August 2005 14:56
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: pgadmin-hackers
> Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] RFC: roles
>
>
> So we have:
> - Groups/Roles and Users as object collection
> - Users will contain all roles with LOGIN
> - Groups/Roles the rest

Hmm, I'd only been thinking about the security tabs so far. I'd be
inclined to have just

Roles
-> Role 1
-> Role 2

in the treeview, and not try to make any distinction between 'users' and
'groups' at that level. The server doesn't, so we probably shouldn't
either. I suppose we could use a modified icon for those with LOGIN, for
convenience though, but I definately think there should be only Roles at
the top. (BTW, the icons for Roles/Role are already done, so just use a
placeholder for now).

Grouping as well as Icons could be used in the combo boxes, but even
then, I'm not sure grouping is required.

BTW, do you plan to keep the 'Display users as well as groups for
security' setting? I think we should, but obviously translated to mean
include LOGIN roles with other ROLES.

> - Both will use common dlgRole dialog, with different checkbox
settings for LOGIN

Yes.

> - 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

See above :-)

> - Guru hint "bad practice" if a LOGIN role is used as role parent

Sounds good.

Regards, Dave