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@openid.net > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs > > _______________________________________________ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
