# Re-appropriating (mis-appropriating?) roles - Content organization question

**URL:** <https://forum.ansible.com/t/re-appropriating-mis-appropriating-roles-content-organization-question/13187>\
**Category:** Ansible Project\
**Created:** [July 24, 2013, 4:28pm UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/re-appropriating-mis-appropriating-roles-content-organization-question/13187 "2013-07-24T16:28:34Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dale\_Quigg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/cab0a1/32.png) [@Dale\_Quigg](https://forum.ansible.com/u/Dale_Quigg)\
**Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 4:28pm UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/re-appropriating-mis-appropriating-roles-content-organization-question/13187/1 "2013-07-24T16:28:34Z")

</div>

Hi,

I’m looking at the best practices page at Content Organization and Directory Layout.

For our application, I’m considering re-appropriating (or mis-appropriating?) the definition of “roles”. I’d prefer to have “roles” contain a “chunk” of configuration that could then be used by a playbook.

So, for example, I’d have  
roles/  
MySQL/  
MSSQL/  
ODBC/  
ETC-1/  
ETC-2/  
ETC-3/

each of these would contain all the steps required for setting up a particular “chunk” of configuration for all platforms we support.

This makes playbooks more lengthy/detailed as they will need to reference many roles, but I’m OK with this. For example.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Luke\_Tislow1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/cab0a1/32.png) [@Luke\_Tislow1](https://forum.ansible.com/u/Luke_Tislow1)\
**Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 5:12pm UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/re-appropriating-mis-appropriating-roles-content-organization-question/13187/2 "2013-07-24T17:12:54Z")

</div>

That's reasonable. The best practices gives some guidance about this.  
I would suggest setting up a common role too.

[http://www.ansibleworks.com/docs/bestpractices.html](http://www.ansibleworks.com/docs/bestpractices.html)

-luke