Help with ASP.NET Memberships

Discussion in 'ASP .Net' started by Jonathan Wood, Oct 15, 2007.

  1. I'm taking my first stab at using ASP.NET memberships and could use some
    help.

    I'm following along in a book, which recommends I use the Web Application
    Administration Tool in VS 2005.

    A couple of problems:

    1. The only choices it gives me for the authentication method are Windows
    and Passport. Based on what I read, forms is what I need. Can anyone tell me
    why this option isn't available?

    2. I see it generated a complete, new database to store the membership
    information in. That's okay I guess but doesn't it have the option of
    storing those tables in my main database? Is it the standard to create a
    separate database? Most of the data I need to store will be associated with
    the users and so I assume I'd want to combine database and be able to extend
    the user information that ASP.NET created. Am I off-track here?

    Thanks for any help.

    --
    Jonathan Wood
    SoftCircuits Programming
    http://www.softcircuits.com
    Jonathan Wood, Oct 15, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jonathan Wood

    Scott M. Guest

    You should have two choices for authentication: Forms(passport) or
    Windows(active directory). It seems that you are getting these two choices.

    The database that is needed to manage the memberships is quite sophisticated
    and is much more than just a table of users and their access levels. You
    would not want to merge this data with data of your own. Having said that,
    the default storage mechanism for the membership database is SQL Server
    Express Edition (which is included with VS 2005). You can change this so
    that the database is set up within an existing instance of SQL Server or
    even other provider that you have on your system. This, however is not as
    simple as just changing a setting. It involves changing values in your
    web.config and possilby machine.config files for VS 2005 as well as creating
    the membership database itself within the provider you wish to use.

    But to sum up, using the membership database in conjunction with your own
    extesions of that database is not a good idea.

    -Scott




    "Jonathan Wood" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm taking my first stab at using ASP.NET memberships and could use some
    > help.
    >
    > I'm following along in a book, which recommends I use the Web Application
    > Administration Tool in VS 2005.
    >
    > A couple of problems:
    >
    > 1. The only choices it gives me for the authentication method are Windows
    > and Passport. Based on what I read, forms is what I need. Can anyone tell
    > me why this option isn't available?
    >
    > 2. I see it generated a complete, new database to store the membership
    > information in. That's okay I guess but doesn't it have the option of
    > storing those tables in my main database? Is it the standard to create a
    > separate database? Most of the data I need to store will be associated
    > with the users and so I assume I'd want to combine database and be able to
    > extend the user information that ASP.NET created. Am I off-track here?
    >
    > Thanks for any help.
    >
    > --
    > Jonathan Wood
    > SoftCircuits Programming
    > http://www.softcircuits.com
    >
    Scott M., Oct 15, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jonathan Wood

    Phil H Guest

    Dear Jonathan

    The ASPNETDB database that is created can support multiple
    applications. It has been designed to act as a common resource. One of
    the fields in the tables is "Application ID"

    It is not true that only Windows and Passport modes of authentication
    are supported. It does indeed support Forms mode, in fact there are
    special web controls for it e.g. the Login control which is available
    in the toolbox of the VS2005 designer.

    If you want to integrate the membership database with your application
    database then the easiest way is to add your own tables etc to the
    ASPNETDB database. The latter can be renamed to something else but you
    will need to ammend the web.config file accordingly.

    I'm afraid it's all too complicated to deal with here, I suggest you
    study it further and give yourself a chance to absorb it all before
    trying to implement it in an actual project. There are a lot of other
    issues that need to be addressed, not the least is whether you can use
    the default mode of access via so called "User instances" where
    the .mdb file is attached "on the fly" to the SQL server, or whether
    you set it up as a permanently attached database (SQL 2005 Express
    edition will support it).

    Having said that it's a great tool for controlling who can do what and
    the various views that different users can have of the site and its
    resources. It's well worth persevering with.

    HTH



    On 15 Oct, 20:37, "Jonathan Wood" <> wrote:
    > I'm taking my first stab at using ASP.NET memberships and could use some
    > help.
    >
    > I'm following along in a book, which recommends I use the Web Application
    > Administration Tool in VS 2005.
    >
    > A couple of problems:
    >
    > 1. The only choices it gives me for the authentication method are Windows
    > and Passport. Based on what I read, forms is what I need. Can anyone tell me
    > why this option isn't available?
    >
    > 2. I see it generated a complete, new database to store the membership
    > information in. That's okay I guess but doesn't it have the option of
    > storing those tables in my main database? Is it the standard to create a
    > separate database? Most of the data I need to store will be associated with
    > the users and so I assume I'd want to combine database and be able to extend
    > the user information that ASP.NET created. Am I off-track here?
    >
    > Thanks for any help.
    >
    > --
    > Jonathan Wood
    > SoftCircuits Programminghttp://www.softcircuits.com
    Phil H, Oct 15, 2007
    #3
  4. Scott,

    > You should have two choices for authentication: Forms(passport) or
    > Windows(active directory). It seems that you are getting these two
    > choices.


    Ack! Well, running it again I see the wording is how will users access the
    site and the choices are from the Web or from a local network. Selecting
    'from the Web' does indeed seem to implement forms authentication mode. I
    guess I didn't quite get what it was doing before.

    > The database that is needed to manage the memberships is quite
    > sophisticated and is much more than just a table of users and their access
    > levels. You would not want to merge this data with data of your own.


    But as I mentioned before, the only data I really need to store is some
    additional information about the users. Are you recommending I create a new
    database so that I have two different databases that store my users' data?

    Note: My site will be hosted on a shared hosting service.

    Thanks.

    Jonathan
    Jonathan Wood, Oct 15, 2007
    #4
  5. Phil,

    > The ASPNETDB database that is created can support multiple
    > applications. It has been designed to act as a common resource. One of
    > the fields in the tables is "Application ID"


    Yeah, I see that. The problem is that my site will be hosted on a shared
    hosting service. And I have no reason to associate more than one site with
    the membership database.

    > It is not true that only Windows and Passport modes of authentication
    > are supported. It does indeed support Forms mode, in fact there are
    > special web controls for it e.g. the Login control which is available
    > in the toolbox of the VS2005 designer.


    I guess I didn't quite get what the Web Application Administration Tool was
    doing. Reviewing that, it appears to be implementing forms authentication
    okay.

    > If you want to integrate the membership database with your application
    > database then the easiest way is to add your own tables etc to the
    > ASPNETDB database. The latter can be renamed to something else but you
    > will need to ammend the web.config file accordingly.


    Let me ask you this: if your application data is primarily information about
    your users, would keep the two databases separate or merge them?

    I would have thought not only that both data would go into the same
    database, but that ideally I could add fields to the user data in the
    membership database. Is that not the approach you'd take?

    > I'm afraid it's all too complicated to deal with here, I suggest you
    > study it further and give yourself a chance to absorb it all before
    > trying to implement it in an actual project. There are a lot of other
    > issues that need to be addressed, not the least is whether you can use
    > the default mode of access via so called "User instances" where
    > the .mdb file is attached "on the fly" to the SQL server, or whether
    > you set it up as a permanently attached database (SQL 2005 Express
    > edition will support it).
    >
    > Having said that it's a great tool for controlling who can do what and
    > the various views that different users can have of the site and its
    > resources. It's well worth persevering with.


    I don't have much choice. I need to implement the site now. My understanding
    is that user instances are bad, but I'm not thinking that will be an issue
    for me.

    I guess I can just create a separate database and store my data there is
    that will be simpler. I just thought that would be a big waste is space and
    performance.

    Thanks.

    Jonathan
    Jonathan Wood, Oct 15, 2007
    #5
  6. Jonathan Wood

    Scott M. Guest

    > Are you recommending I create a new database so that I have two different
    > databases that store my users' data?


    No, you could create new tables in the membership database if needed, but I
    wouldn't mess with any of the auto-generated stuff.
    Scott M., Oct 15, 2007
    #6
  7. I just want to make sure I understand.

    So you don't see any need for a separate database, but that I should add
    separate tables for storing my application's user data, even if there is
    some overlap. Is that correct?

    At this point, I should probably take the path of least resistance.

    Thanks.

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

    "Scott M." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >> Are you recommending I create a new database so that I have two different
    >> databases that store my users' data?

    >
    > No, you could create new tables in the membership database if needed, but
    > I wouldn't mess with any of the auto-generated stuff.
    >
    >
    >
    Jonathan Wood, Oct 16, 2007
    #7
  8. Jonathan Wood

    Scott M. Guest

    Correct. Also, I don't see any problem with creating relationships in your
    new table(s) with existing data. Also, I'm not sure what data (if any) in
    the auto-generated tables may be encrypted or hashed, so you may run into
    issues deciphering the data (I'm not sure).



    "Jonathan Wood" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    >I just want to make sure I understand.
    >
    > So you don't see any need for a separate database, but that I should add
    > separate tables for storing my application's user data, even if there is
    > some overlap. Is that correct?
    >
    > At this point, I should probably take the path of least resistance.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > --
    > Jonathan Wood
    > SoftCircuits Programming
    > http://www.softcircuits.com
    >
    > "Scott M." <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>> Are you recommending I create a new database so that I have two
    >>> different databases that store my users' data?

    >>
    >> No, you could create new tables in the membership database if needed, but
    >> I wouldn't mess with any of the auto-generated stuff.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    Scott M., Oct 16, 2007
    #8
  9. I don't understand the FUD that seems to be going on here. You create the
    ASP.NET Membership, Roles and Profiles database schema in *ANY* database you
    want via the ASPNET_REGSQL.EXE utility. You can also do it programmatically
    with methods in the System.Web.Management namespace, e.g.:
    Management.SqlServices.Install("server", "USERNAME", "PASSWORD",
    "databasename", SqlFeatures.All)

    http://www.eggheadcafe.com/articles/20060529.asp

    -- Peter
    Recursion: see Recursion
    site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    unBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
    BlogMetaFinder: http://www.blogmetafinder.com



    "Jonathan Wood" wrote:

    > Phil,
    >
    > > The ASPNETDB database that is created can support multiple
    > > applications. It has been designed to act as a common resource. One of
    > > the fields in the tables is "Application ID"

    >
    > Yeah, I see that. The problem is that my site will be hosted on a shared
    > hosting service. And I have no reason to associate more than one site with
    > the membership database.
    >
    > > It is not true that only Windows and Passport modes of authentication
    > > are supported. It does indeed support Forms mode, in fact there are
    > > special web controls for it e.g. the Login control which is available
    > > in the toolbox of the VS2005 designer.

    >
    > I guess I didn't quite get what the Web Application Administration Tool was
    > doing. Reviewing that, it appears to be implementing forms authentication
    > okay.
    >
    > > If you want to integrate the membership database with your application
    > > database then the easiest way is to add your own tables etc to the
    > > ASPNETDB database. The latter can be renamed to something else but you
    > > will need to ammend the web.config file accordingly.

    >
    > Let me ask you this: if your application data is primarily information about
    > your users, would keep the two databases separate or merge them?
    >
    > I would have thought not only that both data would go into the same
    > database, but that ideally I could add fields to the user data in the
    > membership database. Is that not the approach you'd take?
    >
    > > I'm afraid it's all too complicated to deal with here, I suggest you
    > > study it further and give yourself a chance to absorb it all before
    > > trying to implement it in an actual project. There are a lot of other
    > > issues that need to be addressed, not the least is whether you can use
    > > the default mode of access via so called "User instances" where
    > > the .mdb file is attached "on the fly" to the SQL server, or whether
    > > you set it up as a permanently attached database (SQL 2005 Express
    > > edition will support it).
    > >
    > > Having said that it's a great tool for controlling who can do what and
    > > the various views that different users can have of the site and its
    > > resources. It's well worth persevering with.

    >
    > I don't have much choice. I need to implement the site now. My understanding
    > is that user instances are bad, but I'm not thinking that will be an issue
    > for me.
    >
    > I guess I can just create a separate database and store my data there is
    > that will be simpler. I just thought that would be a big waste is space and
    > performance.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > Jonathan
    >
    >
    =?Utf-8?B?UGV0ZXIgQnJvbWJlcmcgW0MjIE1WUF0=?=, Oct 16, 2007
    #9
  10. Okay, thanks. It would be a shame though. In my database, some users are
    clients and some users are trainers and each client must be associated with
    a trainer. So if my data is in separate tables, I need a table just to link
    the users to trainers. In addition to the fact that I think that would break
    things like cascading deletes, etc., it just doesn't seem like a very good
    design.

    It looks like you can implement your own provider class. I'll research that
    some more as I don't know if that's more than I want to get into now.

    Thanks.

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


    "Scott M." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Correct. Also, I don't see any problem with creating relationships in
    > your new table(s) with existing data. Also, I'm not sure what data (if
    > any) in the auto-generated tables may be encrypted or hashed, so you may
    > run into issues deciphering the data (I'm not sure).
    >
    >
    >
    > "Jonathan Wood" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    >>I just want to make sure I understand.
    >>
    >> So you don't see any need for a separate database, but that I should add
    >> separate tables for storing my application's user data, even if there is
    >> some overlap. Is that correct?
    >>
    >> At this point, I should probably take the path of least resistance.
    >>
    >> Thanks.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Jonathan Wood
    >> SoftCircuits Programming
    >> http://www.softcircuits.com
    >>
    >> "Scott M." <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>> Are you recommending I create a new database so that I have two
    >>>> different databases that store my users' data?
    >>>
    >>> No, you could create new tables in the membership database if needed,
    >>> but I wouldn't mess with any of the auto-generated stuff.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>

    >
    >
    Jonathan Wood, Oct 16, 2007
    #10
  11. Peter,

    >I don't understand the FUD that seems to be going on here. You create the
    > ASP.NET Membership, Roles and Profiles database schema in *ANY* database
    > you
    > want via the ASPNET_REGSQL.EXE utility. You can also do it
    > programmatically
    > with methods in the System.Web.Management namespace, e.g.:
    > Management.SqlServices.Install("server", "USERNAME", "PASSWORD",
    > "databasename", SqlFeatures.All)
    >
    > http://www.eggheadcafe.com/articles/20060529.asp


    I'm not really sure if this was directed at me or which statements,
    specifically, constituted FUD in your mind. As you can probably tell, I
    haven't been working with ASP.NET very long at all.

    From what I've read, you can implement your own provider class. If so, that
    sounds like a nice feature but may be more work than I want to take on.

    This ASPNET_REGSQL.EXE utility is a new reference to me and I have
    absolutely no idea what it does or how it helps one to implement
    memberships. I will definitely read the article though.

    Thanks.

    --
    Jonathan Wood
    SoftCircuits Programming
    http://www.softcircuits.com
    Jonathan Wood, Oct 16, 2007
    #11
  12. Hi Jonathan,

    I understand your difficulty. When I had a similar project, I experienced
    the same thing. It took me a good bit of research and study to get the ideas
    behing the ASP.Net Provider Model, and some of the implementations of it
    (Membership Provider, Role Provider, SiteMap Provider) which come packaged
    in the framework, but once I "got it" it became fairly simple to use, and I
    even ended up writing a Provider of my own which I used for email with
    Memberships and Roles in an application.

    Part of the confusion may arise from not understanding (as I did not) that
    several or all of these Providers may be mixed and matched. For example, in
    my project, I used all of them together. The difference between Membership
    and Roles is only one of specificity. If you think about how Windows
    security works, it is very similar. Membership is similar to individual
    users on a system or a domain. Roles are similar to Groups. As a user may be
    a member of several Groups, so Members may have many Roles. The link between
    these and the SiteMap Provider is that the SiteMap Provider includes support
    of restricting both the navigation viewability of sections or individual
    pages in a web site, and the ability to directly navigate to sections or
    pages in a web site, via the application of Roles and Members to those
    sections and pages, via Membership and/or Role Providers.

    Another aspect which may cause confusion is that these are all designed to
    be highly flexible, and the documentation reflects this. It is not necessary
    to use both Membership and Roles, for example, One may use one or the other.
    In addition, the storage of Membership and Role data is highly
    configurable/flexible, allowing the developer to choose between using XML
    configuration files, databases, Windows security accounts, or any other
    storage mechanism desired. This is all accomplished via loose coupling
    between the provider classes and their backing data stores.

    The simplicity comes from a combination of the Provider pattern itself, and
    the use of static classes to provide the interface between the application
    and the Provider. The Provider pattern dictates that a static class of
    static methods is the "intermediary" between the application and the actual
    Provider class implementation. The static class acts as a "proxy" for the
    implementation, accepting input from the application, passing it on to the
    Provider class implementation, getting the response from the implementation,
    and returning it to the Application transparently. The application knows
    nothing of the actual Provider implementation; the static class finds it via
    the configuration file.

    It is the implementation that knows where the data store is, and how to
    handle the input. There are a very few built-in implementations in the
    Framework, but many which can be developed, if one understands the model.
    The application knows what to expect from the static class, and as long as
    it gets what it expects, it can use any Provider.

    At any rate, some articles and sample code might be helpful to you (I know
    they were to me), so here are some good links:

    http://www.odetocode.com/Articles/427.aspx
    http://www.odetocode.com/Articles/428.aspx
    http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa479030.aspx
    http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa478948.aspx
    http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa479031.aspx
    http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa479032.aspx
    http://quickstarts.asp.net/QuickStartv20/aspnet/doc/security/default.aspx
    http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/asp.net/aa336558.aspx
    http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms998317.aspx
    http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms998347.aspx
    http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms998314.aspx

    --
    HTH,

    Kevin Spencer
    Microsoft MVP

    DSI PrintManager, Miradyne Component Libraries:
    http://www.miradyne.net


    "Jonathan Wood" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Okay, thanks. It would be a shame though. In my database, some users are
    > clients and some users are trainers and each client must be associated
    > with a trainer. So if my data is in separate tables, I need a table just
    > to link the users to trainers. In addition to the fact that I think that
    > would break things like cascading deletes, etc., it just doesn't seem like
    > a very good design.
    >
    > It looks like you can implement your own provider class. I'll research
    > that some more as I don't know if that's more than I want to get into now.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > --
    > Jonathan Wood
    > SoftCircuits Programming
    > http://www.softcircuits.com
    >
    >
    > "Scott M." <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Correct. Also, I don't see any problem with creating relationships in
    >> your new table(s) with existing data. Also, I'm not sure what data (if
    >> any) in the auto-generated tables may be encrypted or hashed, so you may
    >> run into issues deciphering the data (I'm not sure).
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> "Jonathan Wood" <> wrote in message
    >> news:%...
    >>>I just want to make sure I understand.
    >>>
    >>> So you don't see any need for a separate database, but that I should add
    >>> separate tables for storing my application's user data, even if there is
    >>> some overlap. Is that correct?
    >>>
    >>> At this point, I should probably take the path of least resistance.
    >>>
    >>> Thanks.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Jonathan Wood
    >>> SoftCircuits Programming
    >>> http://www.softcircuits.com
    >>>
    >>> "Scott M." <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>>> Are you recommending I create a new database so that I have two
    >>>>> different databases that store my users' data?
    >>>>
    >>>> No, you could create new tables in the membership database if needed,
    >>>> but I wouldn't mess with any of the auto-generated stuff.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    Kevin Spencer, Oct 16, 2007
    #12
  13. Thanks Kevin,

    I'm swamped today but will read your entire message along with the links you
    posted.

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

    "Kevin Spencer" <> wrote in message
    news:uNdylf$...
    > Hi Jonathan,
    >
    > I understand your difficulty. When I had a similar project, I experienced
    > the same thing. It took me a good bit of research and study to get the
    > ideas behing the ASP.Net Provider Model, and some of the implementations
    > of it (Membership Provider, Role Provider, SiteMap Provider) which come
    > packaged in the framework, but once I "got it" it became fairly simple to
    > use, and I even ended up writing a Provider of my own which I used for
    > email with Memberships and Roles in an application.
    >
    > Part of the confusion may arise from not understanding (as I did not) that
    > several or all of these Providers may be mixed and matched. For example,
    > in my project, I used all of them together. The difference between
    > Membership and Roles is only one of specificity. If you think about how
    > Windows security works, it is very similar. Membership is similar to
    > individual users on a system or a domain. Roles are similar to Groups. As
    > a user may be a member of several Groups, so Members may have many Roles.
    > The link between these and the SiteMap Provider is that the SiteMap
    > Provider includes support of restricting both the navigation viewability
    > of sections or individual pages in a web site, and the ability to directly
    > navigate to sections or pages in a web site, via the application of Roles
    > and Members to those sections and pages, via Membership and/or Role
    > Providers.
    >
    > Another aspect which may cause confusion is that these are all designed to
    > be highly flexible, and the documentation reflects this. It is not
    > necessary to use both Membership and Roles, for example, One may use one
    > or the other. In addition, the storage of Membership and Role data is
    > highly configurable/flexible, allowing the developer to choose between
    > using XML configuration files, databases, Windows security accounts, or
    > any other storage mechanism desired. This is all accomplished via loose
    > coupling between the provider classes and their backing data stores.
    >
    > The simplicity comes from a combination of the Provider pattern itself,
    > and the use of static classes to provide the interface between the
    > application and the Provider. The Provider pattern dictates that a static
    > class of static methods is the "intermediary" between the application and
    > the actual Provider class implementation. The static class acts as a
    > "proxy" for the implementation, accepting input from the application,
    > passing it on to the Provider class implementation, getting the response
    > from the implementation, and returning it to the Application
    > transparently. The application knows nothing of the actual Provider
    > implementation; the static class finds it via the configuration file.
    >
    > It is the implementation that knows where the data store is, and how to
    > handle the input. There are a very few built-in implementations in the
    > Framework, but many which can be developed, if one understands the model.
    > The application knows what to expect from the static class, and as long as
    > it gets what it expects, it can use any Provider.
    >
    > At any rate, some articles and sample code might be helpful to you (I know
    > they were to me), so here are some good links:
    >
    > http://www.odetocode.com/Articles/427.aspx
    > http://www.odetocode.com/Articles/428.aspx
    > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa479030.aspx
    > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa478948.aspx
    > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa479031.aspx
    > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa479032.aspx
    > http://quickstarts.asp.net/QuickStartv20/aspnet/doc/security/default.aspx
    > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/asp.net/aa336558.aspx
    > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms998317.aspx
    > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms998347.aspx
    > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms998314.aspx
    >
    > --
    > HTH,
    >
    > Kevin Spencer
    > Microsoft MVP
    >
    > DSI PrintManager, Miradyne Component Libraries:
    > http://www.miradyne.net
    >
    >
    > "Jonathan Wood" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Okay, thanks. It would be a shame though. In my database, some users are
    >> clients and some users are trainers and each client must be associated
    >> with a trainer. So if my data is in separate tables, I need a table just
    >> to link the users to trainers. In addition to the fact that I think that
    >> would break things like cascading deletes, etc., it just doesn't seem
    >> like a very good design.
    >>
    >> It looks like you can implement your own provider class. I'll research
    >> that some more as I don't know if that's more than I want to get into
    >> now.
    >>
    >> Thanks.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Jonathan Wood
    >> SoftCircuits Programming
    >> http://www.softcircuits.com
    >>
    >>
    >> "Scott M." <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Correct. Also, I don't see any problem with creating relationships in
    >>> your new table(s) with existing data. Also, I'm not sure what data (if
    >>> any) in the auto-generated tables may be encrypted or hashed, so you may
    >>> run into issues deciphering the data (I'm not sure).
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Jonathan Wood" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:%...
    >>>>I just want to make sure I understand.
    >>>>
    >>>> So you don't see any need for a separate database, but that I should
    >>>> add separate tables for storing my application's user data, even if
    >>>> there is some overlap. Is that correct?
    >>>>
    >>>> At this point, I should probably take the path of least resistance.
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks.
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Jonathan Wood
    >>>> SoftCircuits Programming
    >>>> http://www.softcircuits.com
    >>>>
    >>>> "Scott M." <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>>> Are you recommending I create a new database so that I have two
    >>>>>> different databases that store my users' data?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No, you could create new tables in the membership database if needed,
    >>>>> but I wouldn't mess with any of the auto-generated stuff.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>

    >
    >
    Jonathan Wood, Oct 17, 2007
    #13
  14. Jonathan Wood

    Scott M. Guest

    > This ASPNET_REGSQL.EXE utility is a new reference to me and I have
    > absolutely no idea what it does or how it helps one to implement
    > memberships. I will definitely read the article though.


    This is the command line command that will create and configure the ASP.NET
    membership database in a full-blown version of SQL Server.

    But, this is not the only thing you need to do, you still have to change
    either your web.config or machine.config files to tell the framework which
    provider you want to use.

    -Scott
    Scott M., Oct 18, 2007
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bonggoy Cruz
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    3,992
    =?Utf-8?B?RHVzdGluIHZhbiBkZSBTYW5kZSBbTUNBRF0=?=
    Apr 14, 2006
  2. Mike

    Creating site memberships

    Mike, Apr 29, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    377
    Long - CM web hosting
    Apr 29, 2004
  3. Cross Forest Group Memberships

    , Feb 4, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net Security
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    734
    Dominick Baier [DevelopMentor]
    Feb 8, 2006
  4. Ron

    Roles and Memberships

    Ron, May 16, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net Security
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    112
    PeterKellner
    May 18, 2006
  5. Andy Melick

    AD Group Memberships (MyADMembershipProvider) Question

    Andy Melick, Oct 16, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net Security
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    334
    Joe Kaplan
    Oct 16, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page