10 comments

Add a comment…

Sign in

prestine

Your email address

Check!

invalid email

(thinking…)

Reset

or sign in with

• 
• 

UserVoice password

Forgot password?

Create a password

Your name

I agree to the terms of service

Signed in as (Sign out)

Close

Close

Post comment Submitting...

• Alexander Liberson commented  ·  March 28, 2013 9:50 p.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  something like Devise + omniauth for rails.

• Aaron Wells commented  ·  May 3, 2012 7:54 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  The new default should be an OpenID/Federated model, and there should be an MVC controller template that implements OpenAuth. Decoupling the authentication provider just makes more sense today. The membership provider is so 2002.

• Shan McArthur commented  ·  January 24, 2012 12:13 p.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Erik, none of these options work with the standard ASP.NET membership provider. They are razor and MVC only, and do not improve the ASP.NET membership model at all. The only thing they do is make it a little easier to build your own membership store. They don't make it easier for implementing off-site authentication or federated authentication. As requested by all the other comments, the membership contract needs a significant rework.

• AdminErik Porter (ASP.NET PM, ASP.NET Future Feature Feedback) commented  ·  October 21, 2011 11:37 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I'm not sure I can mark this one as done or in progress or planned, but we do have some new providers that change everything so we can do these types of things.

  In January, we shipped ASP.NET Web Pages and Razor v1. In it was a new feature called SimpleMembership that changed the structure for membership to allow for future types of authentication to be added.

  In September, we released the v2 Developer Preview of Web Pages and Razor with added support to SimpleMembership for OAuth (1 and 2) and OpenID.

  In our next update we will be adding support for SimpleMembership into MVC 4 and Web Forms vNext.

  Check out SimpleMembership and see if it fits your needs.

  Thanks everyone. We hear you!

• William E. Triest III commented  ·  September 8, 2011 7:52 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I'd like to second this thought; in my case we use shibboleth, but it's the same idea as the ones listed above where it does not fit well with the current membership provider.

• Graham Charles commented  ·  June 17, 2011 4:04 p.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I agree!

• Eric Jones commented  ·  April 24, 2011 12:50 p.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Here here!

• Luis Abreu commented  ·  March 1, 2011 12:46 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  +1 on redesigning the membership contract

• Eugene Agafonov commented  ·  March 3, 2010 7:36 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Actually, membership provider contract should be completely redesigned, as well as providers infrastructure itself.

• Peter Kellner commented  ·  February 22, 2010 11:15 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Should have sqlserver implementation that supports LINQ2SQL and/or EF without stored procedures. I carry my own ado.net implementation around with me that is getting more and more outdated. +1 on OpenID implementation friendly.