[Freeipa-devel] Fwd: Re: User Groups

[Rob Crittenden]

Dmitri Pal wrote:
>   On 06/13/2011 11:45 AM, Adam Young wrote:
>> Dmitri, is this solution acceptable?
>>
>
> Should it be "direct" - "indirect" - "all"?
>
> What is the use case?
> IMO the main use cases are direct - who is the direct member of this
> group, and all - whom this group will affect if I use it in a policy.
> Indirect is a corner case.

Well, indirect can become a bit of a rat hole too because then you start 
asking questions like "ok, how is this object" a member and you want to 
be able to drill down into things. I'm sure it becomes even more 
interesting when an object is an indirect member due to multiple other 
memberships.

rob

>
>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: 	Re: User Groups
>> Date: 	Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:39:46 -0400 (EDT)
>> From: 	Kyle Baker <kybaker at redhat.com>
>> To: 	Adam Young <ayoung at redhat.com>
>> CC: 	Endi Sukma Dewata <edewata at redhat.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> Attached the image.
>>
>> Kyle Baker
>> Visual Designer
>> Desk - 978 392 3116
>> IRC - kylebaker
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> >  On 06/13/2011 09:55 AM, Kyle Baker wrote:
>> >  >
>> >  >  Kyle Baker
>> >  >  Visual Designer
>> >  >  Desk - 978 392 3116
>> >  >  IRC - kylebaker
>> >  >
>> >  >  ----- Original Message -----
>> >  >>>>>>  I don't think it is at the right level of the heirarchy.
>> >  >>>>>>  Probably
>> >  >>>>>>  better
>> >  >>>>>>  for us to find a way to munge direct and indirect into the same
>> >  >>>>>>  facet.
>> >  >>>>>  Maybe a checkbox in the facet content to show the indirect
>> >  >>>>>  items?
>> >  >>>  I like this solution the best. I think it is the simplest and
>> >  >>>  clearest way to digest the information. Could we have a checkbox
>> >  >>>  for
>> >  >>>  direct also, if the user just wants to see indirect enrollment?
>> >  >>  So we would show both in the same table, but only if the
>> >  >>  appropriate
>> >  >>  checkbox is selected?
>> >  >  Right. I will send a mock up.
>> >
>> >  No need, I get the concept. Thing is , I am not sure that it makes
>> >  sense overall. It munges together two concepts that the CLI keeps
>> >  separate, and I don't think we want to do that. I'd be ok with
>> >  "either/or".
>> >
>> >  >>>>  Can we just show them both? maybe two tables on the page, left to
>> >  >>>>  right, with direct on the left and indirect on the right?
>>
>
>
> --
> Thank you,
> Dmitri Pal
>
> Sr. Engineering Manager IPA project,
> Red Hat Inc.
>
>
> -------------------------------
> Looking to carve out IT costs?
> www.redhat.com/carveoutcosts/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Freeipa-devel mailing list
> Freeipa-devel at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel