Idea for a minilogin change

[alkrun]

This was just an idea I had while looking through the login server code. How about instead of short-circuiting the CheckLoginInfo function for minilogin builds, we do this:

run through CheckLoginInfo and in GetLSAuthentication() still search the login_accounts table for a match. If one is found, log them on with that user account. If not, just add it to the database, query again to get the right id and proceed on.

That way, anyone can log on, just as it is now, but characters could at least be tied to a single logon.

Any thoughts on that?

[madborg]

doesn't this give people the ability to have their own accounts through the minilogin?

I can't make a technical comment, because I don't know if the method you decribe will work, but the feature would be very nice to have.

[Zeitgeist]

i'd like to see somthing along those lines :)

[Pyrotek]

If you want to do that, just run the full login server... Basically you're saying to take mini-login and make it function like our full version.

[alkrun]

Well, I was under the impression that the full login server used the registration process on your website to enter a username / password and log the IP address. It then created the authentication info the first time the user tried to log on from that address. This method wouldn't require the registration and would let anyone who wanted to log on to your server.

It's not much of a change, admittedly, but it would allow people who don't want to worry about authentication to host for more than 8 people at a time. It was just a thought.

[Zeitgeist]

pyro when you say "just run the full login server" do you mean gotfrags? i know a lot of folks who would rather not use gotfrags but would like a more functional version of the ls.

[Pyrotek]

Okay, now I understand you a little better. Perhaps a Mid-Login server lol...

[DeletedUser]

The only problem with this is typing your password wrong would result in a new account. Otherwise it's not that hard.

[alkrun]

Yeah, I was playing around with it with 0.2.1, but I couldn't enter a zone when I had that code running, so I assumed I was doing something wrong, maybe missing one of the database relationships somewhere.

[Zeitgeist]

you ever figure what was wrong with this alk? anyone look at it?