I agree with Mike that option 3 sounds like the best solution. Thanks,
Advertising
David Creech Sent from my iPad On Sep 30, 2011, at 3:25 PM, "Waldron, Michael H" <mwald...@email.unc.edu> wrote: > I like option 3. If you can admin a vmhost you should be able to see what VMs > are assigned to it. Having the VMs that are assigned, but for which you don't > have admin access displayed in a separate area is a good idea. If you need to > remove it you should be able to coordinate with the person that does have > admin access. > > Mike Waldron > Systems Specialist > ITS Research Computing > University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill > CB #3420, ITS Manning, Rm 2509 > 919-962-9778 > ________________________________________ > From: Josh Thompson [josh_thomp...@ncsu.edu] > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 2:47 PM > To: vcl-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: VCL-400 managing VMs on vmhosts > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I'm working on JIRA issue VCL-400. It is to change the list of unassigned VMs > for a vmhost to only display VMs that the user has administer access to > instead of all unassigned VMs. > > The way the page currently works is that you can see any vmhosts you have > administer access to. Then, you can see any VMs assigned to that host and any > VMs unassigned to that host, regardless of whether or not you have administer > access to those VMs (both assigned and unassigned). Unassigned VMs that you > don't have access to should not show up in the list - that's pretty clear and > is what VCL-400 addresses. However, the question arises of whether or not VMs > that you don't have access to should show up in the assigned VMs list, meaning > you have administer access to the vmhost but not administer access to a VM > assigned to it. So, I'm wondering what other people think: > > (1)-Should you be able to remove a VM from a vmhost when you have administer > access to the host but not to the VM? > > (2)-If so, once you remove it, it shouldn't later appear in the unassigned > list because you don't have access to it. So, it's kind of like it just > disappears. How should that be handled? Maybe a warning box that pops up > saying you won't be able to reassign it if you remove it? > > (3)-Alternative - Assigned VMs you don't have access to are displayed > elsewhere on the page so you know they are on the host, but you aren't given > the option of removing them. > > Keep in mind that you cannot immediately remove a VM that currently has a > reservation on it - you can only schedule it to be removed at the end of the > reservation. > > At the moment, I'm okay with either (2) with the warning box or (3). What do > others think? > > Thanks, > Josh > - -- > - ------------------------------- > Josh Thompson > VCL Developer > North Carolina State University > > my GPG/PGP key can be found at pgp.mit.edu > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAk6GDsgACgkQV/LQcNdtPQOyKgCffVR5qC1KNCm7js8ACXk+JuS2 > 64kAmwVj5uLCoDj+GczBFTFGRz5Msot5 > =sHKG > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
