No New DB Field Requirement? (WAS: RE: Questions about IIW Identifier Recycling Table)

[Dick Hardt]

It is more complex having to use two fields to uniquely identify a  
user in a DB then one. DB queries are more complex and there is more  
opportunity for the developer to make mistakes.

Given a goal of OpenID is to be simple, one field is better then two.

-- Dick

On 8-Jun-07, at 10:14 AM, Johnny Bufu wrote:

>
> On 8-Jun-07, at 10:02 AM, Recordon, David wrote:
>
>> I'm confused as to why a RP having to not create a new DB field is a
>> requirement when looking to solve this problem.  RP's implementations
>> already need to change to upgrade from 1.1 to 2.0 and this has never
>> been a requirement in the past.  It certainly is nice that storage
>> changes wouldn't be needed, but I don't see it as something that
>> should
>> be a requirement.
>
> My feeling was that, all other things being equal, some bits of code
> (stripping the fragment for display purposes) which ideally would go
> into the library, were preferred to requiring a schema change (to
> store the separate token) for the RPs. Not a requirement, but a
> strong preference.
>
>
> Johnny
>
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
>
>