Membership, Roles, and the User Profile

Hi,

I see that there will be a way to implement custom providers for the 4.0 release and that there is currently no tutorial explaining how to do it now in the 4.0.992 release.

Will there be something coming out soon for this, either documentation how to do it now or code in the RC?  Will there be support for implementations that require all membership, roles, and the user profile data residing in ASP.NET membership tables?

Would really like to see this sooner than later, of course!

Thanks,
David

Hello David,

You can take a look at this post  - MembershipProviders. As you will see, currently you can use only Sitefinity's way for membership, role and profile data. We will have the ASP.NET wrappers ready after the official release, so you will be able to directly connect your ASP.NET providers to Sitefinity

Kind regards,
Ivan Dimitrov
the Telerik team

Hi,

I saw the other post, thanks.  So what does "after the official release" mean as far as timeframe is concerned?  Sounds like it might not be a very high priority.  Integration with our membership provider is very high on our list.

But I suppose we could just write our own wrapper too! 

Thanks,
David

Hello David,

This implementation is tentatively planned for some of the service packs after the official release. 
That said, it will be released either in the middle of February or the middle of March. 

When we decide on a concrete plan we will announce it on the web site. 

Kalina,
    Hasn't if become blatantly obvious yet that the lack of development on this functionality to this point was a colossal misjudgement.  One of the pillars of asp.net is membership, roles, and user profiles.

The Sitefinity team has always seemed to completely grasp the need with respect to the CMS backend, while the opposite seems true with respect to front end users.

It is much more common now with modern sites to have extensive user databases of site users which are not site administrators in any way.  On occasion there may be a demand to allow such a user access to moderate a blog or forum but I see little reason why in those cases those users could not simply be given an additional backend account for that purpose.

These extensive databases are in use today, often being used by multiple internal and external applications for authentication and containing varying amounts of user information. Single Sign On etc.

Not being able to authenticate with such common asp.net membership databases from day one right out of the box  with Sitefinity is a complete show stopper. 

As people get done playing and want to start implementing a real site they instantly run into this brick wall.

Now this February or March announcement is extremely bad news.  Nothing like newsletters being delayed or some other module one can find a way to live without or develop themselves.
 
While of course Sitefinity licensing is yearly so that reduces a one year license to 9 months usable with respect to 4.0, and that is decreased each time base functionality is delayed.


Why not add Sitefinity 3 and Sitefinity 4 to Public Issue Tracking System?

Thank you

Hello Bill,

I understand your reasoning. We will discuss the importance of this functionality when planning for Q1.

We have a system where we log client requests on this link:
sitefinity.uservoice.com/


Greetings,
Kalina
the Telerik team

HI Kalina,

I could not agree more with Bill on this issue.  We are now having to deal with issue head on because we cannot wait for a Telerik solution in February or March.  We already have an applicatin (with users) we are integrating with Sitefinity.

David

The sooner the better. This is delaying a project of our's too.

Before it was stated support would be available in the official release. During the RC webinar, it was stated that this support already existed in the RC. Now it's going to be March?

This was supported in 3.x, so I would imagine it would be necessary to have it available in 4.0 when it goes live.

Anyway, the sooner this functionality is available, the better. We have to delay our project until this functionality is available -- and in the meantime, I'm sorry, but I guess I'll have to evaluate other CMS and curb my recommendations.

Eric