Configuration Question for AF Users

[jbrunken]

I just wanted to take a quick survey of AF admins to see how they have their DNN/AF configured.

1) In DNN, do you use Display Names and if so do you force display names to be unique.

2) In AF, do have have it configured to display username, display name or some combination of first/last name.

These are important questions because the Tapatalk clients have a serious limitation in that the always pass "username" and never pass "userid". In AF, "username" maps to whatever is configured to display in forum posts.

If we can determine that most people have this configured to use "username" or "unique display names", then it will be possible to implement some additional parts of the Tapatalk API (private messages, user info, etc).

I suspect that this is the case for most AF installs, but I want to verify it before I sink a bunch more effort into additional implementations.

--- Want to back this issue? **[Post a bounty on it!](https://www.bountysource.com/issues/1438726-configuration-question-for-af-users?utm_campaign=plugin&utm_content=tracker%2F494766&utm_medium=issues&utm_source=github)** We accept bounties via [Bountysource](https://www.bountysource.com/?utm_campaign=plugin&utm_content=tracker%2F494766&utm_medium=issues&utm_source=github).

[skiank]

username

[frozendnn]

Please do not enforce usernames because I enforce email id of my users as their username. Plus a user can never change his username like a display name. Allowing Tapatalk to display displaynames is a better option for me (at least) because that is what it is intended for..to hide user info and privacy. I do enforce unique display name requirement though. 

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

[supermansrf]

I have a question, does that box have to be checked "Require Unique Display Name" or if we already know that we do require unique display names will be enough? In our case(s) we require unique usernames, and the display name is 99% of the time the same, with some small exceptions. However we do not have any duplicate display names.

I've never tried turning on require unique display name. I will do that today on a few sites and see if anything blows up. My question is does it in fact have to be on if you know that it is already the case?

[jbrunken]

The "Require unique display name" option does not currently have be checked for the functionality that currently exists in the Tapatalk plugin to work properly. Most of the "yet to be implemented" features will require it to be unique in order to function properly.

Case it point: Say you have 2 users that have the display name "JohnDoe123". If we were to implement the private messages section and one of those users sent a private message to a different user, the Tapatalk plugin would not be able to resolve to the correct user in the DNN database. It would basically have a 50/50 chance of finding the right "JohnDoe123".

This would be a non-issue if a) The people at Tapatalk would have had the forethought to figure out that username is probably not a great thing to use as a primary key or b) The userId value that is documented in the API was actually supported by the Tapatalk clients.

Anyway, for people who are using username or unique display names, I think we can add quite a bit of additional functionality right now even without the clients sending the userId value like they are supposed to.

[MervHarvey]

DNN - Unique Display Names; AF Display Names

[jbrunken]

So I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe there are many people using anything other than username or display name. It's probably worth moving forward with that assumption. If you aren't using username or unique display names, you just won't see the added functionality in the client.

[MervHarvey]

Posted in the wrong issue.

Have move it to correct place. #4