|
Home > Archive > Commerce Server General > November 2004 > Multiple user profiles
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Multiple user profiles
|
|
| KC Wong 2004-11-22, 8:46 pm |
| Hi guys,
I'm new to CS. I'm currently implementing a MSIB pack of solution that
requires user registration for 3 user types. These user types are
Business Users, Non-business Users and Members, each having a
different set of user profiles (different fields, demographics and
information).
I'm just wondering how can I create 3 different profiles in CS.
Appreciate any feedback!
Cheers
KC
| |
| Robert Bogue [MVP] 2004-11-23, 2:47 am |
| For login the profile must be named UserObject. My suggestion would be to
create a profile which contains all the fields for all types and then has a
type field to designate the type.
Rob
"KC Wong" <kc4775@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:65b4114c.0411221705.2bb8cbe4@posting.google.com...
> Hi guys,
> I'm new to CS. I'm currently implementing a MSIB pack of solution that
> requires user registration for 3 user types. These user types are
> Business Users, Non-business Users and Members, each having a
> different set of user profiles (different fields, demographics and
> information).
> I'm just wondering how can I create 3 different profiles in CS.
> Appreciate any feedback!
>
> Cheers
> KC
| |
| KC Wong 2004-11-23, 5:56 pm |
| Hi there!
What if I create 3 profile definitions for each of the user type, then
in my user registration page (I'll have 3 user registration pages
created for the 3 user types), I just write to, say, User Object for
Members, Business for Business users, and NonBusiness for the
non-business users?
Additional questions:
1. Bearing in mind that I need to use this user profile(s) for
profiling/personalization purposes. Can I still use the method
mentioned above? Any implications that you see?
2. You mention for login purposes, I must use the User Object profile.
Is that a must or I can use other profile definitions? If no, why and
if yes, what are the implications?
Thanks a bunch for any feedback!
Cheers
KC
"Robert Bogue [MVP]" <robert[dot]bogue[at]crowechizek[nospam]com> wrote in message news:<On#oOOR0EHA.1392@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>...[vbcol=seagreen]
> For login the profile must be named UserObject. My suggestion would be to
> create a profile which contains all the fields for all types and then has a
> type field to designate the type.
>
> Rob
>
> "KC Wong" <kc4775@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:65b4114c.0411221705.2bb8cbe4@posting.google.com...
| |
| Robert Bogue [MVP] 2004-11-23, 8:46 pm |
| KC: I'll answer to the best of my ability but first... Why do you feel the
need to keep them in three separate profile objects? Why can't they all be
in one large profile object?
Re: profiling/personalization - Not something I've spent a lot of time with
but my guess is that it requires UserObject -- just like
logon/authentication.
Re: UserObject. It's an absolute necessity. There are other issues with
renaming the underlying table to. (Although those can be worked around.)
as for why it's a requirement, It's just one of those things that never made
it to be fully configurable. It is what it is.
Rob
"KC Wong" <kc4775@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:65b4114c.0411231644.7d8cc689@posting.google.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi there!
> What if I create 3 profile definitions for each of the user type, then
> in my user registration page (I'll have 3 user registration pages
> created for the 3 user types), I just write to, say, User Object for
> Members, Business for Business users, and NonBusiness for the
> non-business users?
>
> Additional questions:
> 1. Bearing in mind that I need to use this user profile(s) for
> profiling/personalization purposes. Can I still use the method
> mentioned above? Any implications that you see?
> 2. You mention for login purposes, I must use the User Object profile.
> Is that a must or I can use other profile definitions? If no, why and
> if yes, what are the implications?
>
> Thanks a bunch for any feedback!
>
> Cheers
> KC
>
>
> "Robert Bogue [MVP]" <robert[dot]bogue[at]crowechizek[nospam]com> wrote in
> message news:<On#oOOR0EHA.1392@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>...
| |
| KC Wong 2004-11-25, 2:48 am |
| Hi Rob,
Thanks for the reply.
Reason I want to use 3 profile definitions instead of 1 is that I'll
potentially have millions of users and by keeping them all in
UserObject, I'm wasting a lot of spaces in the UserObject table as
users are of different types i.e. a member record will have the fields
that are related to a business and non-business user empty. Multiply
that by millions of records and I have a lot of empty cells, which is
wasting space.
Anyway, I'm now thinking to created different profile definitions for
each of these type of users, and embed these into the UserObject
profile. This way the UserObject profile is still the main user
profile, but the relevant information will be populated to the
different profile definition according to user type. This way I can
minimize lost of space.
Am I making any sense to you?
Cheers
KC
"Robert Bogue [MVP]" <robert[dot]bogue[at]crowechizek[nospam]com> wrote in message news:<utZaZUd0EHA.4004@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>...[vbcol=seagreen]
> KC: I'll answer to the best of my ability but first... Why do you feel the
> need to keep them in three separate profile objects? Why can't they all be
> in one large profile object?
>
> Re: profiling/personalization - Not something I've spent a lot of time with
> but my guess is that it requires UserObject -- just like
> logon/authentication.
>
> Re: UserObject. It's an absolute necessity. There are other issues with
> renaming the underlying table to. (Although those can be worked around.)
> as for why it's a requirement, It's just one of those things that never made
> it to be fully configurable. It is what it is.
>
> Rob
>
> "KC Wong" <kc4775@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:65b4114c.0411231644.7d8cc689@posting.google.com...
| |
| Robert Bogue [MVP] 2004-11-25, 7:46 am |
| Well, yes, an no. I understand that you're concerned about wasted space,
however, this is not really a big issue if you're backending the system with
SQL server. If all of the fields are defined as nvarchar (or varchar if you
don't care about internationalization) and are set so that they can be null
they effectively take up bits in SQL server, not large amounts of space.
I'd suggest that you probably want to consider that the advantage you'll get
of splitting things into multiple profiles may not be worth the extra
work -- although it will function, when you get down to doing the data
warehouse pieces (if you're going to use that feature) you'll have a lot
more work to do if you have additional classes (data warehouse speak,
essentually profiles) and you want to do work on modifying the cubes to
support your additional fields.
By the way, where are you located?
Rob
"KC Wong" <kc4775@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:65b4114c.0411242304.6133392f@posting.google.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Rob,
> Thanks for the reply.
> Reason I want to use 3 profile definitions instead of 1 is that I'll
> potentially have millions of users and by keeping them all in
> UserObject, I'm wasting a lot of spaces in the UserObject table as
> users are of different types i.e. a member record will have the fields
> that are related to a business and non-business user empty. Multiply
> that by millions of records and I have a lot of empty cells, which is
> wasting space.
>
> Anyway, I'm now thinking to created different profile definitions for
> each of these type of users, and embed these into the UserObject
> profile. This way the UserObject profile is still the main user
> profile, but the relevant information will be populated to the
> different profile definition according to user type. This way I can
> minimize lost of space.
>
> Am I making any sense to you?
>
> Cheers
> KC
>
>
>
>
> "Robert Bogue [MVP]" <robert[dot]bogue[at]crowechizek[nospam]com> wrote in
> message news:<utZaZUd0EHA.4004@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>...
| |
| KC Wong 2004-11-25, 8:46 pm |
| Makes sense too. Those are the implications that I was asking about,
and which I was worrying about too!
I think I'll just go ahead and use only UserObject instead.
Thanks for all the feedback! Appreciate it, and btw, I'm in Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia.
Cheers
KC
"Robert Bogue [MVP]" <robert[dot]bogue[at]crowechizek[nospam]com> wrote in message news:<#TTPRHv0EHA.3072@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Well, yes, an no. I understand that you're concerned about wasted space,
> however, this is not really a big issue if you're backending the system with
> SQL server. If all of the fields are defined as nvarchar (or varchar if you
> don't care about internationalization) and are set so that they can be null
> they effectively take up bits in SQL server, not large amounts of space.
>
> I'd suggest that you probably want to consider that the advantage you'll get
> of splitting things into multiple profiles may not be worth the extra
> work -- although it will function, when you get down to doing the data
> warehouse pieces (if you're going to use that feature) you'll have a lot
> more work to do if you have additional classes (data warehouse speak,
> essentually profiles) and you want to do work on modifying the cubes to
> support your additional fields.
>
> By the way, where are you located?
>
> Rob
>
> "KC Wong" <kc4775@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:65b4114c.0411242304.6133392f@posting.google.com...
|
|
|
|
|