Windows Identity Foundation introduces a new ClaimTypes class. It contains predefined claim type URIs for claims defined by OASIS and Microsoft. In the WIF SDK project templates for a custom STS this ClaimTypes class is mixed with the one already in System.IdentityModel.Claims, which is rather confusing. So, what's the difference?

Functionally: None. All claim type URIs in Microsoft.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes are identical to corresponding types in System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes. That said, Microsoft.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes adds a few new claim types.

Technically: Claim types in System.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes are defined as static read only string properties, whereas in Microsoft.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes the claim types are string constants.

My advice: for clarity always use Microsoft.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimTypes.

Soms verandert de realiteit zo snel dat iets wat in een magazine bij mensen op de deurmat valt alweer verkeerde informatie staat (tja, dat heb je als op de PDC weer van alles aangekondigd wordt). In mijn artikel voor SDN Magazine 103 - ASP.NET onder de motorkap: ASP.NET op bezoek bij de browser staat een link naar de ASP.NET AJAX Library die inmiddels al verouderd is en een foutmelding oplevert. Je kunt nu naar http://ajax.codeplex.com/. Met dank aan Leo Broos die me liet weten dat de oude link niet meer werkt.

Earlier this year I was pretty negative about the Azure story from Microsoft. My main gripe was that (from my perspective at the time) it was not a write-once, run-anywhere story, so you couldn't run your current apps in Azure without modification. I'm very pleased about what I've seen now from PDC. Microsoft has opened up Azure in many ways, giving you much more control over what's happening. In fact, you can get your own virtual machines and have complete remote admin access. Also, they've been really thinking about how to tie your existing hosting environment to Azure and vice versa. It will be possible to connect a web app inside Azure securely to a database server in your own data center.

I must say I'm impressed at how well Microsoft has listened to all the feedback about Azure. With all the changes they've implemented I feel that it has now become interesting for some of the services my company is implementing, whereas previously we weren't even considering Azure.

Windows Identity Foundation, formerly known as "Geneva", has shipped. I've been talking about Geneva/WIF on several occasions and I absolutely love it. It opens the door for a whole new realm of authentication/authorization scenario's. SharePoint 2010 will be the first Microsoft Product to support it, apart from the new Active Directory Federation Services 2.0, which was part of the development effort and was formerly known as "Geneva" Server. Be sure to check it out!

Komende zaterdag is Code Camp en daar zal ik een sessie doen over Windows Identity Foundation, de nieuwe basis voor beveiliging. Kom je ook? Het is gratis.

I've been a proponent of development inside virtual machine for years. At my previous employer I pretty much moved the whole dev-department from host based development to VM development in 2004 when Virtual PC 2004 came out. Up until now I've always been pretty happy with Virtual PC considering its cost-benefit ratio (it's free and only was only slightly less powerfull than paid offrings from other vendors). However, with Windows Virtual PC Microsoft has seriously dropped the ball. Where all hypervisor based VM software enables you to run 64-bit guests, Microsoft only supports that with Hyper-V on Windows 2008 Server. Since we're not letting our devs run Windows Server on their laptops for several reasons, this is rapidly becoming a problem. Windows 2008 R2 is not available in 32-bit and SharePoint 2010 will also not run in a 32-bit environment. Because of this we've been forced to look for alternatives. VMWare Workstation was our first bet, but it'll take converting all our current VHD images, and I was not really impressed by the overall performance and manageability. Today we started testing VirtualBox and I'm impressed. It'll run our existing VHDs natively, also those that use differencing disks. In fact, the media manager makes it very intuitive to work with differencing disks and shows you the disk hierarchy. It also runs very smoothly, even before installing the add-ons in the virtual images.

VirtualBox comes in a free open source version that you'll have to compile yourself (how hard is it for Sun to also post the binaries?). It lacks some features, such as USB support, but we don't need the additional features. Even so, we are still considering the commercial license just for ease. It's only $50 per machine, with $30 for a subscription (starting at 50 users minium, so not for us though). Unless Microsoft steps up its Virtual PC development and offers 64-bit support within the next six months or so, we will likely move to VirtualBox.

As many BizTalk developers we've been using the SSO (Single Sign On) database for more than just SSO. We've been storing configuration data in that database too. This used to be a work around, and we were using some custom tool to edit the entries in the SSO database. However, we recently learned that Microsoft has release an MMC snap-in to manage the values. You can download it here. Microsoft itself states this about the tool:

This tool provides the ability to add and manage applications, add and manage key value pairs, as well as import and export configuration applications so that they can be deployed to different environments.

That apparently means that even Redmond has "officially" accepted that SSO is used for configuration as well.

As an MVP I've had the fortune of being involved early in the VS2010 beta. Because the number of beta participants is relatively small in the beginning, Microsoft is able to have a much more interaction with the testing population and excplicitly goes out for feedback and discussion of some of the features. VS2010 is a great example of Microsoft putting that to good use. Something simple like the Add Reference dialog has improved greatly in VS2010, as Scott Guthrie explains here. I remember the discussion about it, because there were quite a few different ideas about what should come up first and what you use the most. As you can see, Microsoft decided that the Projects tab is the most likely to be used first, so I'm assuming most developers agree on that (I do anyway).

BTW, the rest of the series on VS2010 and .NET 4.0 provides a good overview of what you can expect of the new release.

Recently I found myself having to debug a large stored procedure that calls all sorts of sub-procedures. Also, the data set was rather large and it only failed sometimes. SQL Management Studio in this scenario isn't very helpful for several reasons:

• The number of PRINT messages that it'll show is limited, so if the error is out of range... tough luck.
• Even with PRINT messages it can be hard to pin down which statement is actually in error.
• Line numbers are never accurate.
• It seems View Dendencies sometimes misses out on dependencies.
• View Dependencies doesn't show the number of times a proc is called from another proc.

SQL Profiler, which also comes with SQL Server is a much better tool when it comes to pin-pointing the erronous statement(s), after which you can modify your code to show an error message that prints the values causing the hickup. When you use SQL Profiler, be sure to select more than just the default events. Click Show All Events and select all Error events, as well as the Stored Procedure events that show Starting and Completed of SQL statements with stored procedures. Then, once the root procedure is done, do a Find through the trace for "Error", and you can see exactly which statement is causing the error.

My company regularly works on public facing websites, and as such it is imperative we test the sites we create with most common browsers. Naturally that means at least Internet Explorer, FireFox, Safari, and Opera. With the last three we just download and install om some test (virtual) machine. With IE however this is somewhat more complicated (although not impossible to run different versions of IE side by side. However, Microsoft provides a set of Virtual PC images known as the Internet Explorer Application Compatibility VPC Image. These images enable you to test different versions of IE on different versions of Windows. These images have a limited lifetime (between 1-4 months), so you'll have to download a new set on a regular basis, but other than that this is really handy. The following configurations are available:

• Windows XP SP3 with IE6
• Windows XP SP3 with IE7
• Windows XP SP3 with IE8
• Windows Vista with IE7
• Windows Vista with IE8

Unfortunately these configurations are all en-US, so if you want to test with say a Dutch version of Windows, you'll have to create your own images (which is what my company has done, even for en-US).

Today http://orchard.codeplex.com/ went live. Orchard is an open source Content Management System that the folks from Redmond are working on together with the ASP.NET community, and which I've been following with much interest. Orchard is based on ASP.NET MVC, which means I'd favor it over something like Umbraco when it is mature enough. Why? Because this should mean that it blends easier with your regular development efforts, rather than having to deal with an entirely different templating technology. Umbraco for instance uses XSLT, and even though I wrote a book a about XSLT and my company is well versed in XSLT because we do a lot of BizTalk, it is troublesome for plain ASP.NET developers.

Keep in mind that Orchard is relatively new and a lot of scenario's are still not supported. But at the pace the team is going, you'll soon see more advanced stuff being possible. You can make yourself heard about what you'd like to see through CodePlex or through one of the sessions at TechEd or PDC this month.