RockteMQ-AI commented on issue #1312: URL: https://github.com/apache/rocketmq-dashboard/issues/1312#issuecomment-5231955214
**Issue Evaluation** Category: `enhancement` | Status: **Evaluated** **Feasibility:** feasible (significant architectural work) **Scope:** ACL provider abstraction, instance credential resolution, RocketMQ admin API integration **Compatibility:** No breaking changes — additive provider contract This is a solid design proposal for introducing a provider boundary between the Studio ACL UI and the actual RocketMQ instance ACL management. Key considerations: 1. **Provider contract** — Define `AclProvider` interface with CRUD operations for users and permissions, scoped to an instance context. 2. **Credential resolution** — The provider must resolve admin credentials from the instance configuration (which may vary: direct admin, K8s-managed, cloud-hosted). 3. **Unsupported state handling** — The suggestion to surface "no provider available" clearly in the UI is important — the current local-only ACL records should not mislead users into thinking they are applied to a cluster. 4. **Migration path** — Existing local ACL records should be preserved as configuration/cache data once a provider is connected. This pairs naturally with #1314 (K8s certificate provider) — both establish the same instance-scoped provider pattern. Consider a shared design document. --- *Automated evaluation by github-manager-bot* -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
