You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@airavata.apache.org by Sachith Withana <sw...@gmail.com> on 2014/01/31 17:55:55 UTC
Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
Hi all,
Can someone explain to me the mapping of users to groups in a Science
Gateway? ( This is regarding the Amber usecase).
Can there be multiple user groups in a gateway portal when it comes to just
one usecase?
ex: If we have only one usecase for the portal ( such as Amber)
--
Thanks,
Sachith Withana
Re: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
Posted by Suresh Marru <sm...@apache.org>.
Can we please follow up on this? How is the current notion of users within Registry?
Suresh
On Jan 31, 2014, at 2:55 PM, Suresh Marru <sm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Let me see if I can clarify:
>
> Airavata expects clients (or gateways) to manage users and groups. And Airavata relies on gateway portal request (which it will blindly trust-based on well secure communications) to tell which user and group is making a request. The discussion I see now happening is for Airavata to manage the input and output data. So it will need its own internal structure on how to manage these.
>
> If a gateway choose to, it can leverage this structure, but this will not be required.
>
> As for the data model:
>
> I suggest against making any implicit derivations of the data models these leads to ambiguity once the motivation is forgotten. I rather suggest making explicit changes to the data model if the need is justified.
>
> Airavata data model as I understand is as follows:
>
> Gateways-> Users-> Projects->Experiments
>
> I think what we are talking is to change it induce a groups in between which is a fine addition, so then it should be:
>
> Gateways-> Groups-> Users-> Projects-> Experiments.
>
> Simpler use cases may choose to always use a single default group and a user may choose to have single project. In that case, it shows like:
> Gateways->Users->Experiments, but in the backend its always should have a self-explanatory hierarchy.
>
> Suresh
>
>
> On Jan 31, 2014, at 2:49 PM, Miller, Mark <mm...@sdsc.edu> wrote:
>
>> I think we agreed that the Gateways would be responsible for user management, but maybe that is at a different level?
>>
>> From: Sachith Withana [mailto:swsachith@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 11:46 AM
>> To: dev@airavata.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
>>
>> Thanks Raman,
>> I looked into the tables. It looks to be a viable option.
>> But is it okay to manage the users from the Airavata server itself?
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Raminder Singh <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Looking at Airavata Data model, there is project which is equivalent to User group. A project can have multiple user for a gateway and a gateway can have multiple projects.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Raminder
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Miller, Mark <mm...@sdsc.edu> wrote:
>> As an end user, I think even with just a single tool, the argument for a group is there.
>> As Saminda suggested, one may wish to have a join area to work in with a group, and individual work you aren’t ready to share, even with just a single tool.
>>
>> Because a Gateway is wide open, it is easy to imagine a case where there are several groups, each with (potentially overlapping) users, who all are working with Amber for different projects..
>> Agreed. I totally forgot about shared projects scenario. Thanks for pointing it out Mark.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> From: Saminda Wijeratne [mailto:samindaw@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 9:11 AM
>> To: dev
>> Subject: Re: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
>>
>> I'm not an expert on the Amber usecase, but I suppose it is possible to have multiple user groups for a single usecase. It could be to have a shared space of data hidden from each user group. It could be to author access/privilledges to the portal or resources depending on the user group.
>>
>> I would assume the mapping of user to usergroups would be many to one mapping. Unlike user roles I don't think it is sensible to have users being mapped to multiple groups (there is a whole area of security to consider here).
>>
>> (I do have to note that usergroup IMO is not a must concept for a science gateway)
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Sachith Withana <sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Can someone explain to me the mapping of users to groups in a Science Gateway? ( This is regarding the Amber usecase).
>>
>> Can there be multiple user groups in a gateway portal when it comes to just one usecase?
>> ex: If we have only one usecase for the portal ( such as Amber)
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Sachith Withana
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Sachith Withana
>>
>
RE: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
Posted by "Miller, Mark" <mm...@sdsc.edu>.
Thanks for explaining Suresh!
-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Marru [mailto:smarru@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 11:55 AM
To: Airavata Dev
Subject: Re: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
Let me see if I can clarify:
Airavata expects clients (or gateways) to manage users and groups. And Airavata relies on gateway portal request (which it will blindly trust-based on well secure communications) to tell which user and group is making a request. The discussion I see now happening is for Airavata to manage the input and output data. So it will need its own internal structure on how to manage these.
If a gateway choose to, it can leverage this structure, but this will not be required.
As for the data model:
I suggest against making any implicit derivations of the data models these leads to ambiguity once the motivation is forgotten. I rather suggest making explicit changes to the data model if the need is justified.
Airavata data model as I understand is as follows:
Gateways-> Users-> Projects->Experiments
I think what we are talking is to change it induce a groups in between which is a fine addition, so then it should be:
Gateways-> Groups-> Users-> Projects-> Experiments.
Simpler use cases may choose to always use a single default group and a user may choose to have single project. In that case, it shows like:
Gateways->Users->Experiments, but in the backend its always should have a self-explanatory hierarchy.
Suresh
On Jan 31, 2014, at 2:49 PM, Miller, Mark <mm...@sdsc.edu> wrote:
> I think we agreed that the Gateways would be responsible for user management, but maybe that is at a different level?
>
> From: Sachith Withana [mailto:swsachith@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 11:46 AM
> To: dev@airavata.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
>
> Thanks Raman,
> I looked into the tables. It looks to be a viable option.
> But is it okay to manage the users from the Airavata server itself?
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Raminder Singh <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Looking at Airavata Data model, there is project which is equivalent to User group. A project can have multiple user for a gateway and a gateway can have multiple projects.
>
> Thanks
> Raminder
>
> On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Miller, Mark <mm...@sdsc.edu> wrote:
> As an end user, I think even with just a single tool, the argument for a group is there.
> As Saminda suggested, one may wish to have a join area to work in with a group, and individual work you aren't ready to share, even with just a single tool.
>
> Because a Gateway is wide open, it is easy to imagine a case where there are several groups, each with (potentially overlapping) users, who all are working with Amber for different projects..
> Agreed. I totally forgot about shared projects scenario. Thanks for pointing it out Mark.
>
> Mark
>
> From: Saminda Wijeratne [mailto:samindaw@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 9:11 AM
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
>
> I'm not an expert on the Amber usecase, but I suppose it is possible to have multiple user groups for a single usecase. It could be to have a shared space of data hidden from each user group. It could be to author access/privilledges to the portal or resources depending on the user group.
>
> I would assume the mapping of user to usergroups would be many to one mapping. Unlike user roles I don't think it is sensible to have users being mapped to multiple groups (there is a whole area of security to consider here).
>
> (I do have to note that usergroup IMO is not a must concept for a science gateway)
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Sachith Withana <sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Can someone explain to me the mapping of users to groups in a Science Gateway? ( This is regarding the Amber usecase).
>
> Can there be multiple user groups in a gateway portal when it comes to just one usecase?
> ex: If we have only one usecase for the portal ( such as Amber)
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Sachith Withana
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Sachith Withana
>
Re: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
Posted by Suresh Marru <sm...@apache.org>.
Let me see if I can clarify:
Airavata expects clients (or gateways) to manage users and groups. And Airavata relies on gateway portal request (which it will blindly trust-based on well secure communications) to tell which user and group is making a request. The discussion I see now happening is for Airavata to manage the input and output data. So it will need its own internal structure on how to manage these.
If a gateway choose to, it can leverage this structure, but this will not be required.
As for the data model:
I suggest against making any implicit derivations of the data models these leads to ambiguity once the motivation is forgotten. I rather suggest making explicit changes to the data model if the need is justified.
Airavata data model as I understand is as follows:
Gateways-> Users-> Projects->Experiments
I think what we are talking is to change it induce a groups in between which is a fine addition, so then it should be:
Gateways-> Groups-> Users-> Projects-> Experiments.
Simpler use cases may choose to always use a single default group and a user may choose to have single project. In that case, it shows like:
Gateways->Users->Experiments, but in the backend its always should have a self-explanatory hierarchy.
Suresh
On Jan 31, 2014, at 2:49 PM, Miller, Mark <mm...@sdsc.edu> wrote:
> I think we agreed that the Gateways would be responsible for user management, but maybe that is at a different level?
>
> From: Sachith Withana [mailto:swsachith@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 11:46 AM
> To: dev@airavata.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
>
> Thanks Raman,
> I looked into the tables. It looks to be a viable option.
> But is it okay to manage the users from the Airavata server itself?
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Raminder Singh <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Looking at Airavata Data model, there is project which is equivalent to User group. A project can have multiple user for a gateway and a gateway can have multiple projects.
>
> Thanks
> Raminder
>
> On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Miller, Mark <mm...@sdsc.edu> wrote:
> As an end user, I think even with just a single tool, the argument for a group is there.
> As Saminda suggested, one may wish to have a join area to work in with a group, and individual work you aren’t ready to share, even with just a single tool.
>
> Because a Gateway is wide open, it is easy to imagine a case where there are several groups, each with (potentially overlapping) users, who all are working with Amber for different projects..
> Agreed. I totally forgot about shared projects scenario. Thanks for pointing it out Mark.
>
> Mark
>
> From: Saminda Wijeratne [mailto:samindaw@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 9:11 AM
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
>
> I'm not an expert on the Amber usecase, but I suppose it is possible to have multiple user groups for a single usecase. It could be to have a shared space of data hidden from each user group. It could be to author access/privilledges to the portal or resources depending on the user group.
>
> I would assume the mapping of user to usergroups would be many to one mapping. Unlike user roles I don't think it is sensible to have users being mapped to multiple groups (there is a whole area of security to consider here).
>
> (I do have to note that usergroup IMO is not a must concept for a science gateway)
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Sachith Withana <sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Can someone explain to me the mapping of users to groups in a Science Gateway? ( This is regarding the Amber usecase).
>
> Can there be multiple user groups in a gateway portal when it comes to just one usecase?
> ex: If we have only one usecase for the portal ( such as Amber)
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Sachith Withana
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Sachith Withana
>
Re: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
Posted by Sachith Withana <sw...@gmail.com>.
Yes. That's true.
IMO Gateways should be responsible in handling their users and groups.
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Miller, Mark <mm...@sdsc.edu> wrote:
> I think we agreed that the Gateways would be responsible for user
> management, but maybe that is at a different level?
>
>
>
> *From:* Sachith Withana [mailto:swsachith@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, January 31, 2014 11:46 AM
> *To:* dev@airavata.apache.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
>
>
>
> Thanks Raman,
>
> I looked into the tables. It looks to be a viable option.
>
> But is it okay to manage the users from the Airavata server itself?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Raminder Singh <ra...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Looking at Airavata Data model, there is project which is equivalent to
> User group. A project can have multiple user for a gateway and a gateway
> can have multiple projects.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Raminder
>
>
>
> On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <sa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Miller, Mark <mm...@sdsc.edu> wrote:
>
> As an end user, I think even with just a single tool, the argument for a
> group is there.
>
> As Saminda suggested, one may wish to have a join area to work in with a
> group, and individual work you aren't ready to share, even with just a
> single tool.
>
>
>
> Because a Gateway is wide open, it is easy to imagine a case where there
> are several groups, each with (potentially overlapping) users, who all are
> working with Amber for different projects..
>
> Agreed. I totally forgot about shared projects scenario. Thanks for
> pointing it out Mark.
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> *From:* Saminda Wijeratne [mailto:samindaw@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, January 31, 2014 9:11 AM
> *To:* dev
> *Subject:* Re: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
>
>
>
> I'm not an expert on the Amber usecase, but I suppose it is possible to
> have multiple user groups for a single usecase. It could be to have a
> shared space of data hidden from each user group. It could be to author
> access/privilledges to the portal or resources depending on the user group.
>
> I would assume the mapping of user to usergroups would be many to one
> mapping. Unlike user roles I don't think it is sensible to have users being
> mapped to multiple groups (there is a whole area of security to consider
> here).
>
>
>
> (I do have to note that usergroup IMO is not a must concept for a science
> gateway)
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Sachith Withana <sw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Can someone explain to me the mapping of users to groups in a Science
> Gateway? ( This is regarding the Amber usecase).
>
>
>
> Can there be multiple user groups in a gateway portal when it comes to
> just one usecase?
>
> ex: If we have only one usecase for the portal ( such as Amber)
>
>
>
> --
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sachith Withana
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sachith Withana
>
--
Thanks,
Sachith Withana
RE: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
Posted by "Miller, Mark" <mm...@sdsc.edu>.
I think we agreed that the Gateways would be responsible for user management, but maybe that is at a different level?
From: Sachith Withana [mailto:swsachith@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 11:46 AM
To: dev@airavata.apache.org
Subject: Re: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
Thanks Raman,
I looked into the tables. It looks to be a viable option.
But is it okay to manage the users from the Airavata server itself?
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Raminder Singh <ra...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Looking at Airavata Data model, there is project which is equivalent to User group. A project can have multiple user for a gateway and a gateway can have multiple projects.
Thanks
Raminder
On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <sa...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Miller, Mark <mm...@sdsc.edu>> wrote:
As an end user, I think even with just a single tool, the argument for a group is there.
As Saminda suggested, one may wish to have a join area to work in with a group, and individual work you aren't ready to share, even with just a single tool.
Because a Gateway is wide open, it is easy to imagine a case where there are several groups, each with (potentially overlapping) users, who all are working with Amber for different projects..
Agreed. I totally forgot about shared projects scenario. Thanks for pointing it out Mark.
Mark
From: Saminda Wijeratne [mailto:samindaw@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 9:11 AM
To: dev
Subject: Re: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
I'm not an expert on the Amber usecase, but I suppose it is possible to have multiple user groups for a single usecase. It could be to have a shared space of data hidden from each user group. It could be to author access/privilledges to the portal or resources depending on the user group.
I would assume the mapping of user to usergroups would be many to one mapping. Unlike user roles I don't think it is sensible to have users being mapped to multiple groups (there is a whole area of security to consider here).
(I do have to note that usergroup IMO is not a must concept for a science gateway)
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Sachith Withana <sw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi all,
Can someone explain to me the mapping of users to groups in a Science Gateway? ( This is regarding the Amber usecase).
Can there be multiple user groups in a gateway portal when it comes to just one usecase?
ex: If we have only one usecase for the portal ( such as Amber)
--
Thanks,
Sachith Withana
--
Thanks,
Sachith Withana
Re: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
Posted by Sachith Withana <sw...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Raman,
I looked into the tables. It looks to be a viable option.
But is it okay to manage the users from the Airavata server itself?
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Raminder Singh <ra...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Looking at Airavata Data model, there is project which is equivalent to
> User group. A project can have multiple user for a gateway and a gateway
> can have multiple projects.
>
> Thanks
> Raminder
>
> On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <sa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Miller, Mark <mm...@sdsc.edu> wrote:
>
>> As an end user, I think even with just a single tool, the argument for
>> a group is there.
>>
>> As Saminda suggested, one may wish to have a join area to work in with a
>> group, and individual work you aren't ready to share, even with just a
>> single tool.
>>
>>
>>
>> Because a Gateway is wide open, it is easy to imagine a case where there
>> are several groups, each with (potentially overlapping) users, who all are
>> working with Amber for different projects..
>>
> Agreed. I totally forgot about shared projects scenario. Thanks for
> pointing it out Mark.
>
>>
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Saminda Wijeratne [mailto:samindaw@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 31, 2014 9:11 AM
>> *To:* dev
>> *Subject:* Re: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not an expert on the Amber usecase, but I suppose it is possible to
>> have multiple user groups for a single usecase. It could be to have a
>> shared space of data hidden from each user group. It could be to author
>> access/privilledges to the portal or resources depending on the user group.
>>
>> I would assume the mapping of user to usergroups would be many to one
>> mapping. Unlike user roles I don't think it is sensible to have users being
>> mapped to multiple groups (there is a whole area of security to consider
>> here).
>>
>>
>>
>> (I do have to note that usergroup IMO is not a must concept for a science
>> gateway)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Sachith Withana <sw...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>>
>> Can someone explain to me the mapping of users to groups in a Science
>> Gateway? ( This is regarding the Amber usecase).
>>
>>
>>
>> Can there be multiple user groups in a gateway portal when it comes to
>> just one usecase?
>>
>> ex: If we have only one usecase for the portal ( such as Amber)
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Sachith Withana
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
Thanks,
Sachith Withana
Re: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
Posted by Raminder Singh <ra...@gmail.com>.
Looking at Airavata Data model, there is project which is equivalent to User group. A project can have multiple user for a gateway and a gateway can have multiple projects.
Thanks
Raminder
On Jan 31, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Miller, Mark <mm...@sdsc.edu> wrote:
> As an end user, I think even with just a single tool, the argument for a group is there.
>
> As Saminda suggested, one may wish to have a join area to work in with a group, and individual work you aren’t ready to share, even with just a single tool.
>
>
>
> Because a Gateway is wide open, it is easy to imagine a case where there are several groups, each with (potentially overlapping) users, who all are working with Amber for different projects..
>
> Agreed. I totally forgot about shared projects scenario. Thanks for pointing it out Mark.
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> From: Saminda Wijeratne [mailto:samindaw@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 9:11 AM
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
>
>
>
> I'm not an expert on the Amber usecase, but I suppose it is possible to have multiple user groups for a single usecase. It could be to have a shared space of data hidden from each user group. It could be to author access/privilledges to the portal or resources depending on the user group.
>
> I would assume the mapping of user to usergroups would be many to one mapping. Unlike user roles I don't think it is sensible to have users being mapped to multiple groups (there is a whole area of security to consider here).
>
>
>
> (I do have to note that usergroup IMO is not a must concept for a science gateway)
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Sachith Withana <sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Can someone explain to me the mapping of users to groups in a Science Gateway? ( This is regarding the Amber usecase).
>
>
>
> Can there be multiple user groups in a gateway portal when it comes to just one usecase?
>
> ex: If we have only one usecase for the portal ( such as Amber)
>
>
>
> --
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sachith Withana
>
>
>
>
Re: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
Posted by Sachith Withana <sw...@gmail.com>.
As an end user, I think even with just a single tool, the argument for a
group is there.
As Saminda suggested, one may wish to have a join area to work in with a
group, and individual work you aren't ready to share, even with just a
single tool.
Because a Gateway is wide open, it is easy to imagine a case where there
are several groups, each with (potentially overlapping) users, who all are
working with Amber for different projects..
I too forgot about the different project scenario.
I agree with all the suggestions brought up by Mark and Saminda. Thanks a
lot for the input.
The gateway itself have to manage the users and userGroups. I will look
into more usecases to figure out the best way to implement it.
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <sa...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Miller, Mark <mm...@sdsc.edu> wrote:
>
>> As an end user, I think even with just a single tool, the argument for
>> a group is there.
>>
>> As Saminda suggested, one may wish to have a join area to work in with a
>> group, and individual work you aren't ready to share, even with just a
>> single tool.
>>
>>
>>
>> Because a Gateway is wide open, it is easy to imagine a case where there
>> are several groups, each with (potentially overlapping) users, who all are
>> working with Amber for different projects..
>>
> Agreed. I totally forgot about shared projects scenario. Thanks for
> pointing it out Mark.
>
>>
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Saminda Wijeratne [mailto:samindaw@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 31, 2014 9:11 AM
>> *To:* dev
>> *Subject:* Re: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not an expert on the Amber usecase, but I suppose it is possible to
>> have multiple user groups for a single usecase. It could be to have a
>> shared space of data hidden from each user group. It could be to author
>> access/privilledges to the portal or resources depending on the user group.
>>
>> I would assume the mapping of user to usergroups would be many to one
>> mapping. Unlike user roles I don't think it is sensible to have users being
>> mapped to multiple groups (there is a whole area of security to consider
>> here).
>>
>>
>>
>> (I do have to note that usergroup IMO is not a must concept for a science
>> gateway)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Sachith Withana <sw...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>>
>> Can someone explain to me the mapping of users to groups in a Science
>> Gateway? ( This is regarding the Amber usecase).
>>
>>
>>
>> Can there be multiple user groups in a gateway portal when it comes to
>> just one usecase?
>>
>> ex: If we have only one usecase for the portal ( such as Amber)
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Sachith Withana
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Thanks,
Sachith Withana
Re: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
Posted by Saminda Wijeratne <sa...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Miller, Mark <mm...@sdsc.edu> wrote:
> As an end user, I think even with just a single tool, the argument for a
> group is there.
>
> As Saminda suggested, one may wish to have a join area to work in with a
> group, and individual work you aren't ready to share, even with just a
> single tool.
>
>
>
> Because a Gateway is wide open, it is easy to imagine a case where there
> are several groups, each with (potentially overlapping) users, who all are
> working with Amber for different projects..
>
Agreed. I totally forgot about shared projects scenario. Thanks for
pointing it out Mark.
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> *From:* Saminda Wijeratne [mailto:samindaw@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, January 31, 2014 9:11 AM
> *To:* dev
> *Subject:* Re: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
>
>
>
> I'm not an expert on the Amber usecase, but I suppose it is possible to
> have multiple user groups for a single usecase. It could be to have a
> shared space of data hidden from each user group. It could be to author
> access/privilledges to the portal or resources depending on the user group.
>
> I would assume the mapping of user to usergroups would be many to one
> mapping. Unlike user roles I don't think it is sensible to have users being
> mapped to multiple groups (there is a whole area of security to consider
> here).
>
>
>
> (I do have to note that usergroup IMO is not a must concept for a science
> gateway)
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Sachith Withana <sw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Can someone explain to me the mapping of users to groups in a Science
> Gateway? ( This is regarding the Amber usecase).
>
>
>
> Can there be multiple user groups in a gateway portal when it comes to
> just one usecase?
>
> ex: If we have only one usecase for the portal ( such as Amber)
>
>
>
> --
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sachith Withana
>
>
>
RE: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
Posted by "Miller, Mark" <mm...@sdsc.edu>.
As an end user, I think even with just a single tool, the argument for a group is there.
As Saminda suggested, one may wish to have a join area to work in with a group, and individual work you aren't ready to share, even with just a single tool.
Because a Gateway is wide open, it is easy to imagine a case where there are several groups, each with (potentially overlapping) users, who all are working with Amber for different projects..
Mark
From: Saminda Wijeratne [mailto:samindaw@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 9:11 AM
To: dev
Subject: Re: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
I'm not an expert on the Amber usecase, but I suppose it is possible to have multiple user groups for a single usecase. It could be to have a shared space of data hidden from each user group. It could be to author access/privilledges to the portal or resources depending on the user group.
I would assume the mapping of user to usergroups would be many to one mapping. Unlike user roles I don't think it is sensible to have users being mapped to multiple groups (there is a whole area of security to consider here).
(I do have to note that usergroup IMO is not a must concept for a science gateway)
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Sachith Withana <sw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi all,
Can someone explain to me the mapping of users to groups in a Science Gateway? ( This is regarding the Amber usecase).
Can there be multiple user groups in a gateway portal when it comes to just one usecase?
ex: If we have only one usecase for the portal ( such as Amber)
--
Thanks,
Sachith Withana
Re: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
Posted by Saminda Wijeratne <sa...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Sachith Withana <sw...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Thanks a lot Saminda,
>
> So a user will have access to multiple shared spaces ( for each usergroup)
> and to his/her own private space.
>
> In the CIPRES usecase, how would you allow access to shared spaces in
> terms of the user experience?
> having one shared Space for the user and populate with all the experiments
> shared with the user or
> having multiple shared spaces categorized by the usergroup?
>
Unfortunately Airavata is still at its infant stage when managing users and
its groups. We do have the published space (shared among users in a
gateway) and user private space. We need to figure-out a good design and
architecture for managing user groups. But IMO this is more of a gateway
side feature rather than a middleware-resource-management goal.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <sa...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I'm not an expert on the Amber usecase, but I suppose it is possible to
>> have multiple user groups for a single usecase. It could be to have a
>> shared space of data hidden from each user group. It could be to author
>> access/privilledges to the portal or resources depending on the user group.
>>
>> I would assume the mapping of user to usergroups would be many to one
>> mapping. Unlike user roles I don't think it is sensible to have users being
>> mapped to multiple groups (there is a whole area of security to consider
>> here).
>>
>> (I do have to note that usergroup IMO is not a must concept for a science
>> gateway)
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Sachith Withana <sw...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Can someone explain to me the mapping of users to groups in a Science
>>> Gateway? ( This is regarding the Amber usecase).
>>>
>>> Can there be multiple user groups in a gateway portal when it comes to
>>> just one usecase?
>>> ex: If we have only one usecase for the portal ( such as Amber)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks,
>>> Sachith Withana
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Sachith Withana
>
>
RE: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
Posted by "Miller, Mark" <mm...@sdsc.edu>.
In the CIPRES usecase, how would you allow access to shared spaces in terms of the user experience?
having one shared Space for the user and populate with all the experiments shared with the user or
having multiple shared spaces categorized by the usergroup?
The current CIPRES use case is focused on the single user, and so I would imagine the former.
This isn't an issue we have addressed yet since we don't support groups yet. But I imagine it would be
the users space is populated with all items (s)he is allowed to see.
From: Sachith Withana [mailto:swsachith@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 9:19 AM
To: dev@airavata.apache.org
Subject: Re: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
Thanks a lot Saminda,
So a user will have access to multiple shared spaces ( for each usergroup) and to his/her own private space.
In the CIPRES usecase, how would you allow access to shared spaces in terms of the user experience?
having one shared Space for the user and populate with all the experiments shared with the user or
having multiple shared spaces categorized by the usergroup?
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <sa...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I'm not an expert on the Amber usecase, but I suppose it is possible to have multiple user groups for a single usecase. It could be to have a shared space of data hidden from each user group. It could be to author access/privilledges to the portal or resources depending on the user group.
I would assume the mapping of user to usergroups would be many to one mapping. Unlike user roles I don't think it is sensible to have users being mapped to multiple groups (there is a whole area of security to consider here).
(I do have to note that usergroup IMO is not a must concept for a science gateway)
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Sachith Withana <sw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi all,
Can someone explain to me the mapping of users to groups in a Science Gateway? ( This is regarding the Amber usecase).
Can there be multiple user groups in a gateway portal when it comes to just one usecase?
ex: If we have only one usecase for the portal ( such as Amber)
--
Thanks,
Sachith Withana
--
Thanks,
Sachith Withana
Re: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
Posted by Sachith Withana <sw...@gmail.com>.
Thanks a lot Saminda,
So a user will have access to multiple shared spaces ( for each usergroup)
and to his/her own private space.
In the CIPRES usecase, how would you allow access to shared spaces in terms
of the user experience?
having one shared Space for the user and populate with all the experiments
shared with the user or
having multiple shared spaces categorized by the usergroup?
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <sa...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I'm not an expert on the Amber usecase, but I suppose it is possible to
> have multiple user groups for a single usecase. It could be to have a
> shared space of data hidden from each user group. It could be to author
> access/privilledges to the portal or resources depending on the user group.
>
> I would assume the mapping of user to usergroups would be many to one
> mapping. Unlike user roles I don't think it is sensible to have users being
> mapped to multiple groups (there is a whole area of security to consider
> here).
>
> (I do have to note that usergroup IMO is not a must concept for a science
> gateway)
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Sachith Withana <sw...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Can someone explain to me the mapping of users to groups in a Science
>> Gateway? ( This is regarding the Amber usecase).
>>
>> Can there be multiple user groups in a gateway portal when it comes to
>> just one usecase?
>> ex: If we have only one usecase for the portal ( such as Amber)
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Sachith Withana
>>
>>
>
--
Thanks,
Sachith Withana
Re: Users and UserGroups in Science Gateways
Posted by Saminda Wijeratne <sa...@gmail.com>.
I'm not an expert on the Amber usecase, but I suppose it is possible to
have multiple user groups for a single usecase. It could be to have a
shared space of data hidden from each user group. It could be to author
access/privilledges to the portal or resources depending on the user group.
I would assume the mapping of user to usergroups would be many to one
mapping. Unlike user roles I don't think it is sensible to have users being
mapped to multiple groups (there is a whole area of security to consider
here).
(I do have to note that usergroup IMO is not a must concept for a science
gateway)
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Sachith Withana <sw...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Can someone explain to me the mapping of users to groups in a Science
> Gateway? ( This is regarding the Amber usecase).
>
> Can there be multiple user groups in a gateway portal when it comes to
> just one usecase?
> ex: If we have only one usecase for the portal ( such as Amber)
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Sachith Withana
>
>