Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > ASP .Net > ASP.Net Membersip Framework

Reply
Thread Tools

ASP.Net Membersip Framework

 
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-24-2010
Whould you recommend to still use the ASP.Net 2.0 Membership Framework to
manage user accounts, etc. today with ASP.Net 3.5?

Are there better alternatives today?

TIA


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jonathan Wood
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-24-2010
The "membership framework" may have been introduced in version 2.0, but as
far as I'm concerned a more accurate description is the .NET membership
framework. In short, this is the membership functionality included in .NET.

Like most things in ASP.NET, there's no reason not to use this functional
unless you need more customized functionality and don't mind writing it from
scratch.

--
Jonathan Wood
SoftCircuits Programming
http://www.softcircuits.com/blog/

"Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Whould you recommend to still use the ASP.Net 2.0 Membership Framework to
> manage user accounts, etc. today with ASP.Net 3.5?
>
> Are there better alternatives today?
>
> TIA
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gregory A. Beamer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-24-2010


"Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Whould you recommend to still use the ASP.Net 2.0 Membership Framework to
> manage user accounts, etc. today with ASP.Net 3.5?


3.5 sits on top of 2.0, so it is still the same bits you would use. I am
okay with the membership bits, although I find myself creating custom
providers, as the default implementation is a bit clunky for what I do. It
is a great out of the box solution for small sites where the user
effectively controls their own password (and can use the "send me my
password" feature to change it if they forget). If you have a customer
service person that can change things, it gets rather unwieldy. Fortunately,
you can easily create custom providers.

I don't like the default Profile bits at all.

--
Peace and Grace,
Greg

Twitter: @gbworld
Blog: http://gregorybeamer.spaces.live.com

************************************************
| Think outside the box! |
************************************************

 
Reply With Quote
 
Hillbilly
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-24-2010
Agreed, we have to use the Profile Table Provider Scotty released --after--
tacitly conceding what he allowed to go live in the first place was gfs and
still, using the Table Provider does not generate nor use a normalized
schema so Membership remains very useful regardless.

"Gregory A. Beamer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
> "Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Whould you recommend to still use the ASP.Net 2.0 Membership Framework to
>> manage user accounts, etc. today with ASP.Net 3.5?

>
> 3.5 sits on top of 2.0, so it is still the same bits you would use. I am
> okay with the membership bits, although I find myself creating custom
> providers, as the default implementation is a bit clunky for what I do. It
> is a great out of the box solution for small sites where the user
> effectively controls their own password (and can use the "send me my
> password" feature to change it if they forget). If you have a customer
> service person that can change things, it gets rather unwieldy.
> Fortunately, you can easily create custom providers.
>
> I don't like the default Profile bits at all.
>
> --
> Peace and Grace,
> Greg
>
> Twitter: @gbworld
> Blog: http://gregorybeamer.spaces.live.com
>
> ************************************************
> | Think outside the box! |
> ************************************************


 
Reply With Quote
 
Gregory A. Beamer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-25-2010


"Hillbilly" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
> Agreed, we have to use the Profile Table Provider Scotty
> released --after-- tacitly conceding what he allowed to go live in the
> first place was gfs and still, using the Table Provider does not generate
> nor use a normalized schema so Membership remains very useful regardless.


I will have to look at his implementation. I created my own from scratch,
along with a derived class for other membership bits so I could circumvent
the very narrow box Microsoft provides with Membership.'

I am thankful they had the foresight to include a provider model so I did
not have to write everything.

--
Peace and Grace,
Greg

Twitter: @gbworld
Blog: http://gregorybeamer.spaces.live.com

************************************************
| Think outside the box! |
************************************************

 
Reply With Quote
 
Hillbilly
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-25-2010
I'll be thankful too if and when I learn how to use the Provider model.


"Gregory A. Beamer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
> "Hillbilly" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Agreed, we have to use the Profile Table Provider Scotty
>> released --after-- tacitly conceding what he allowed to go live in the
>> first place was gfs and still, using the Table Provider does not generate
>> nor use a normalized schema so Membership remains very useful regardless.

>
> I will have to look at his implementation. I created my own from scratch,
> along with a derived class for other membership bits so I could circumvent
> the very narrow box Microsoft provides with Membership.'
>
> I am thankful they had the foresight to include a provider model so I did
> not have to write everything.
>
> --
> Peace and Grace,
> Greg
>
> Twitter: @gbworld
> Blog: http://gregorybeamer.spaces.live.com
>
> ************************************************
> | Think outside the box! |
> ************************************************


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
delete .NET FRAMEWORK 1.1 before installing .NET FRAMEWORK 2 ???? moi ASP .Net 3 09-26-2008 02:19 PM
Installing 1.1 Framework and 2.0 Framework on the same web server Mark ASP .Net 4 11-17-2005 03:30 PM
spring framework versus struts framework jrefactors@hotmail.com Java 2 09-11-2005 09:54 PM
microsoft.public.dotnet.faqs,microsoft.public.dotnet.framework,microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.windowsforms,microsoft.public.dotnet.general,microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb Charles A. Lackman ASP .Net 1 12-08-2004 07:08 PM
COMInterop does not work in Framework 1.1 without Framework 1.0 Anatoly Volodko ASP .Net 1 08-14-2003 08:11 PM



Advertisments