So consensus is to keep OpenID, but not invest any more time in it? On 14. juni 2010, at 12.25, Richard Hirsch wrote:
> I agree with Vassil. If I remember correctly, users created via OpenID had > their openid urls as their user ids which messed up our UI. > > The one idea I had was to add the OpenID to the sign-up page and created a > JIRA item for this. I looked at the code in the ProfileMgr that dealt with > this in the profile and decided that adding the openID to the sign-on page > was non-trivial and thus placed the jira item in the backlog. > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Vassil Dichev <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> And my question still remains the same ;-) >>> Should we use time on this right now, or would it be easier to remove the >> field in the UI for now? >> >> Sorry for not following up on this: I had the impression that OpenID >> worked as intended and the user is not supposed to create a user >> through OpenID. This would mean that the username would be >> autogenerated and currently you cannot edit the username. This is not >> a hard requirement, but do we want to make the username editable? It >> might make some implications for using existing pools, actions, etc. >> (not that they're bound to the username, but an attacker might use it >> for phishing/social engineering). >> >> Another drawback of OpenID user auto-creation is that a user will not >> have a password initially, and might not ever choose to set it. I'm >> not sure this is desirable, considering that OpenID might not always >> be available and there's no other way to log in. >> > > Good point - the necessity of having two logins is feature :-> > > >> Finally, from usability point of view if you think you have associated >> an OpenID URL with an existing account, but you're not, then logging >> in with OpenID will create a new account you do not want. This is >> especially tricky considering that we treat these as different URLs: >> >> http://host/path/ >> http://host/path/index.html >> http://host.domain.com/path/ >> >> So is OpenID actually broken? If it's not, there's no point in fixing it. >> > > I also agree with Anne that in the long-term, we will probably have > container-based authentication, so investing more time in OpenID probably > isn't ideal. > >> >> Vassil >>
