Re: .Net 2.0 internal debate - looking for opinions
- From: Dominick Baier [DevelopMentor] <dbaier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 06:19:54 +0000 (UTC)
Hi,
Microsoft only guarantess that the views and stored procedures will be stable in future releases. I wouldn't add my own stuff to aspnetdb.
--------------------------------------- Dominick Baier - DevelopMentor http://www.leastprivilege.com
We are using the Membership services and the SQL Membership provider that comes with .Net 2.0. We have no problems but we have added our own tblRoles table to go with the aspnet_Roles table that Microsoft provides. tblRoles has extra information not in aspnet_Roles. There is, and always should be, a 1:1 correspondence between the two tables.
One of our team members wants to modify aspnet_Roles to contain the extra information, because one table is cleaner than two. I am afraid of breaking something if we go modifying Microsoft's tables. Maybe everything would be fine today but some patch might screw things up unexpectedly.
Maybe even adding the table - and some stored procedures - is risky and we should create our own provider. I'm not sure how hard that would be.
What do ya'll think?
Much obliged.
.
- References:
- .Net 2.0 internal debate - looking for opinions
- From: Geoff Pennington
- .Net 2.0 internal debate - looking for opinions
- Prev by Date: Re: .Net 2.0 internal debate - looking for opinions
- Next by Date: Re: anonymous access + impersonation
- Previous by thread: Re: .Net 2.0 internal debate - looking for opinions
- Next by thread: forms authentication -- expired forms cookie vs. not provided forms cookie
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|