User Roles

Any thoughts on providing READ-ONLY role for users as opposed to all or nothing.

Really would like to grant people READ-ONLY access to SQL Elements instead of giving them the ability to change the topology I have setup.

Parents
  • the first person I would give read-only access to is my Boss! There is no reason why he would need access to change the “tags” and ownership that has been setup.

    2nd possibility would be end users, i.e. owners. Allow the Owners (in my case designated department employee) that I have tagged read-access to only their “owned” servers.

    When you create a User in Read-Only Role, you have the right to assign them a “tag” that they can see. :)

    Example: I have 3 SQL servers that a specific department uses. They have a “designated person” I contact when maintenance is done. I have made that person “owner” in SQL Elements. That way I know who to call. If I could give them “read-only” access to the 3 machines the ‘own’, then I can prove to them some maintenance needs to be done.

    just a thought

Reply
  • the first person I would give read-only access to is my Boss! There is no reason why he would need access to change the “tags” and ownership that has been setup.

    2nd possibility would be end users, i.e. owners. Allow the Owners (in my case designated department employee) that I have tagged read-access to only their “owned” servers.

    When you create a User in Read-Only Role, you have the right to assign them a “tag” that they can see. :)

    Example: I have 3 SQL servers that a specific department uses. They have a “designated person” I contact when maintenance is done. I have made that person “owner” in SQL Elements. That way I know who to call. If I could give them “read-only” access to the 3 machines the ‘own’, then I can prove to them some maintenance needs to be done.

    just a thought

Children
No Data