Open Stack

Hi Brian,

I don't think the user can shoot themselves in the foot here. If they are
adding a member to an image it is pretty clear it means they want to share
it.

Yes I can see the case when you want to disable sharing but I don't think
the 'visibility' attribute is the way to do it.

What if you want to share an image with a few people and then prevent the
sharing of the image to any other people. Do you then change the visibility
to private? Maybe this is what the protected attribute should be for?

Basically I think you're overloading the visibility attribute, in one sense
it means you can see the image, but then you're also now making it
determine if the image can be shared or not.

Cheers,
Sam

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Brian Rosmaita <
brian.rosmaita at rackspace.com> wrote:

> On 11/17/16, 1:39 AM, "Sam Morrison" <sorrison at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Nov. 2016, at 3:49 pm, Brian Rosmaita <brian.rosmaita at RACKSPACE.COM>
> wrote:
>
> Ocata workflow:  (1) create an image with default visibility, (2) change
> its visibility to 'shared', (3) add image members
>
>
> Unsure why this can’t be done in 2 steps, when someone adds an image
> member to a ‘private’ image the visibility changes to ‘shared’
> automatically.
> Just seems an extra step for no reason?
>
>
> Thanks for asking, Sam, I'm sure others have the same question.
>
> Here's what we're thinking.  We want to avoid "magic" visibility
> transitions as a side effect of another action, and we want all means of
> changing visibility to be consistent going forward.  The two-step 1-1
> sharing that automatically takes you from 'private' -> 'shared' is
> dangerous, as it can expose data and doesn't give an end user a way to make
> an image "really" private.  It's true that all an end user has to do under
> the new scheme is make one extra API call and then still shoot him/herself
> in the foot, but at least the end user has to remove the safety first by
> explicitly changing the visibility of the image from 'private' to 'shared'
> before the member-list has any effect.
>
> So basically, the reasons for the extra step are consistency and clarity.
>
>
> Sam
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20161118/b665a237/attachment.html>