I agree with Mike that option 3 sounds like the best solution. 

Thanks,

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-----

Reply via email to