[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GUACAMOLE-959?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17036374#comment-17036374
 ] 

Mike Jumper commented on GUACAMOLE-959:
---------------------------------------

This would not make sense for balancing groups, as the contents of such groups 
are typically not exposed to users that have access to the group. Automatically 
doing this would also break the Principle of Least Surprise surrounding the 
typical admin-facing behavior of folder-like hierarchies: the standard behavior 
when granting a permission for a directory or folder is that the permission is 
granted to that directory or folder _only_, not recursively across all files 
that are descendants of the directory (at least not unless an explicit option 
is specified to cause that behavior).

I agree it would make sense to provide an option to allow the administrator to 
explicitly choose to grant access recursively when they are granting that 
access to the group. For that, see GUACAMOLE-181.

> Apply All to Connection Group
> -----------------------------
>
>                 Key: GUACAMOLE-959
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GUACAMOLE-959
>             Project: Guacamole
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>    Affects Versions: 1.0.0, 1.1.0
>            Reporter: Kevin
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: 02-13-20 11-35-54.png
>
>
> When selecting a group from the Group page on the Settings site you can 
> choose the Connections associated with the group as well as the Connection 
> Group.  When checking the top level connection group box it does not apply to 
> all the hosts underneath it.  I've attached a screenshot of the behavior.  We 
> use a script to populate the hosts in Guacamole, it would be nice if anything 
> added to the connection group would be automatically selected for the 
> associated permission group.  We are using the LDAP plugin with AD 
> integration.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)

Reply via email to