Forum: Rails Engines Potential patch (login_engine)

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
37c332966b49eeb1d54eeefd3bc5ce97?d=identicon&s=25 David Corbin (Guest)
on 2006-04-02 21:43
(Received via mailing list)
login_engine is good.  But there are two things about that I "dislike".
I've
been thinking of develop a patch for them, but I'd like some sense that
the
patch goals are agreed with, and thus making it likely to be accepted?

1) Sending out the password in email is just plain bad.  I know I can
probably
replace the view, but I'd rather see it as an configuration option.

2) When a password is forgotten, a secondary authentication token is
email to
the user.  As near as I can tell, that authentication token does general
authentication, until it expires.  I much prefer a model where that
token is
necessary to change the password, and that's all it is good for.  And
when
the password is changed the token is invalidated.

Should I make patch, or just fork it?

David
00e3a96684ab390a350b0271e98741d3?d=identicon&s=25 Nshbrown Nshbrown (nshb)
on 2006-04-03 02:17
(Received via mailing list)
I'd say submit a patch. These both sound like great ideas.

-Nb


On 4/2/06 11:39 AM, "David Corbin" <dcorbin@machturtle.com> wrote:

> necessary to change the password, and that's all it is good for.  And when
> the password is changed the token is invalidated.
>
> Should I make patch, or just fork it?
>
> David
> _______________________________________________
> engine-users mailing list
> engine-users@lists.rails-engines.org
> http://lists.rails-engines.org/listinfo.cgi/engine...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nathaniel S. H. Brown                        http://nshb.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.