Standard roles vs Site roles

[acarpine]

I have some doubts about how to use site roles.
I'm not sure to correctly understand when to use the role Consumer Site (sitePermissionDefinition.xml) rather than the standard role Consumer (permissionDefinition.xml).

Assuming that the correspondence between these two role types is:

Consumer -> Site Consumer

Editor -> /

Contributor -> Site Contributor

Collaborator -> Site Collaborator

Manager -> Site Manager

I think I should use the site roles when I working within a site, but what's the difference?
What happend if I use standard roles (Consumer, Editor…) instead of site roles (in a site context)?

In my case though in a context site I would give to a user both editor and contributor role so I believe the only solution is to use standard roles and I would like to know if there is some implication.

thanks
andrea

[mrogers]

There's little difference except that the site permissions are specific to a particular site and may be tied into the share user interface.   So for example if share wants to know if you are a site manager it will check the site manager role.   If you are using share sites then you should be using the site roles.

[acarpine]

Hi mrogers and thanks for your reply.
As I said in my first post I would give to a user both Editor and Contributor role and I think I could use standard roles or define a new site role.
Is there any implication in using the standard roles?