Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-cloudstack-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cloudstack-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 26782D077 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 22:46:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 15062 invoked by uid 500); 8 Aug 2012 22:46:09 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cloudstack-users-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 15030 invoked by uid 500); 8 Aug 2012 22:46:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-users-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 15018 invoked by uid 99); 8 Aug 2012 22:46:09 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 22:46:09 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of Alex.Huang@citrix.com designates 66.165.176.89 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.165.176.89] (HELO SMTP.CITRIX.COM) (66.165.176.89) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 22:46:02 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,735,1336363200"; d="scan'208";a="34044829" Received: from sjcpmailmx01.citrite.net ([10.216.14.74]) by FTLPIPO01.CITRIX.COM with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 08 Aug 2012 18:45:41 -0400 Received: from SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net ([10.216.4.72]) by SJCPMAILMX01.citrite.net ([10.216.14.74]) with mapi; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 15:45:40 -0700 From: Alex Huang To: "cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org" CC: Prachi Damle Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 15:45:35 -0700 Subject: RE: really bad UI design Thread-Topic: really bad UI design Thread-Index: Ac108UaQRJXkJMjLScqG3i/WE8ZAiwAxe2/w Message-ID: References: <5021625C.2090206@nfinausa.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 >=20 > To sum it up, let's say we need a fine grained Role Based Access Control > (RBAC) model in CloudStack. Are we using anything specific now or is it j= ust > ad hoc code to handle the handful of cases that already exist? >=20 Agreed ACL in CloudStack is limping. We're looking to change that and intr= oduce a RBAC model in Campo release. Is there any suggestion on what we should base this model with? Any existi= ng systems we should take advantage of? --Alex