We're currently considering making our windows application portable to other platforms, and one of the biggest challenges we're facing is removing the massive dependency on MFC we currently have.
We're planning on thinning down our UI layer as much as we can (as there we really need separate implementations depending on platform) but try to keep much of the core shared between platforms. One of our issues is usage of MFC throughout 'core' libraries (relying on MFC non-UI specific data types such as CString, CRect, CPoint, etc.), and we're trying to identify possible solutions.
The first thing that came to mind was writing our own data types to substitute MFC ones. While this is almost definitely the best approach, giving us flexibility in their implementation, this would add some considerable time to the endeavour.
The second option would be using an actually portable library (or a set of them) that gave us these substitute to plug-in. I'm investigating this route to figure out if we can find some reasonably lightweight option to save off significant time with the conversion. Optimally we would be able to make do with a pure datatype set of libraries to use, without the need for all the added UI complexity, and which would provide easy integration with the actual existing MFC UI code. STL works in part (strings, list and other collections..) but it's lacking some coverage.
Has anyone here been through a similar situation and has some experience to share?
Related
I'd doing some research to see if it's possible to convert an MFC-based Windows app to an HTML5 browser-based app. However, I'd like to keep some non-visual classes in a separate library that can be called from the browser or used by other applications, as required. Mostly this non-visual code is CObject-derived data classes that use strings, collections, etc. I'm not really familiar with the C++ Standard Library, would it be possible to post most of my existing of code to it without too many problems? Also, if I wanted to port the serialization code could I use something like the Boost serialization library as an extension to the standard library?
Are there any tools out there that would help with this type of conversion, and identify potential problems?
It is certainly possible to replace a UI layer of an application with a different UI technology. Exactly how difficult this will be will depend on how well separated the layers are in the existing application architecture (i.e. it's easier to replace the 'V' of an MVC app then an app where the model is mixed with the presentation logic)
Keeping non-visual MFC code in separate libraries (typically DLLs) is common place, but this usually implies that the application will continue to be an MFC application.
There are a few unusual things mentioned in your post:
You are talking about replacing desktop UI (MFC) with web UI ("HTML5"). This is still somewhat unusual, unless you are also transitioning to a web application, and placing the non-visual code on the server. That said, if you search on "using html5 for desktop apps" you'll find a lot of tools and discussions. For some apps, coding a UI within the constraints of a browser is still too limiting (e.g. limits on top-level window management and placement, etc.). If your goal is to have a more portable desktop application, you may want to investigate desktop UI libraries (e.g. Qt, wxWindows, etc.)
The C++ standard library and MFC string and container classes are significantly different, aside from offering some of the same general data structures. AFAIK there are no automated tools to convert from MFC to C++ standard library. Again, if your goal is portability, this is a sensible step, and you can write some wrapper classes around the C++ implementation to help adapt your code (although this can be a good opportunity to re-implement classes, or even entire libraries.)
A not-so-unusual thing is to consider using Boost libraries in addition to the standard library - they are high-quality libraries, and can save you a lot of time over rolling your own.
My answer to this question would be "no." But my coworkers disagree.
We're rebuilding our product and have a lot of critical decisions to make in the near-term.
While doing some of my own work I noticed that we've got some in-house C++ classes to abstract some of the POSIX API (threads, mutexes, semaphores, and rw locks) and other utility classes. Note that these classes are basic, and haven't been ported from Linux (portability is a factor in the rebuild.) We are also using POCO C++ libraries.
I brought this to the attention of my coworkers and suggested that we ditch our in-house classes in favour of their POCO equivalents. I want to take full advantage of the library we're already using. They suggested that we should implement our in-house classes using POCO, and further abstract additional POCO classes as necessary, so as not to depend on any specific C++ library (citing future unknowns - what if we want to use a different lib/framework like QT or boost, what if the one we choose turns out to be no good or development becomes inactive, etc.)
They also don't want to refactor legacy code, and by abstracting parts of POCO with our own classes, we can implement additional functionality (classic OOP.) Both of these arguments I can appreciate. However, I argue that if we're doing a recode we should go big, or go home. Now would be the time to refactor and it really shouldn't be that bad especially given the similarity between our classes and those in POCO (threads, etc.) I don't know what to say regarding the second point - should we only use extended classes where the functionality is necessary?
My coworkers also don't want to litter the POCO namespace all over the place. I argue that we should pick a library/framework/toolkit, and stick with it. Take full advantage of its features. Is this not typical practice? The only project I've seen that abstracts an entire framework is Freeswitch (that provides its own interface to APR.)
One suggestion is that the API we expose to each other, and potential customers, should be free of POCO, but it would be present in the implementation (which makes sense.)
None of us really have experience in these kinds of design decisions, and it shows in the current product. Having been at this since I was young, I've got some intuition that has brought me here, but no practical experience either. I really want to avoid poor solutions to problems that are already solved.
I think my question boils down to this: When building a product, should we a) choose a dominant framework on which to base most of our code, and b) expect that framework to be tightly coupled with the product? Isn't that the point of a framework? (Is framework or library more appropriate for POCO?)
First, the API that you expose should definitely be free of POCO, boost, qt, or any other type that is not part of the standard C++ library. This is because the base libraries have their own release cycle, distinct from the release cycle of your library. If the users of your library also use boost, but a different, incompatible, version, they would need to spend time to resolve the incompatibility. The only exception to this rule is when you design a library to be released as part of a wider framework - say, an addition to the POCO toolkit. In this case the release of your library is tied to the release of the entire toolkit.
Internally, however, you should avoid using your own wrappers, unless the library that you are abstracting out is a true "commodity library"1. The reason for this is that when you hide an external library behind your classes, most of the time you mimic the level of abstraction of the library that you are hiding. The code that uses your wrapper will program to the level of abstraction dictated by the external library. When you swap the implementation behind your wrapper for a different framework, it is very likely that you would either (1) adapt the new framework to fit the level of abstraction of the old framework, or (2) will need to change the way in which you use your wrapper. Both cases are highly suspect: if you do (1), perhaps you shouldn't switch in the first place, and if you do (2), then your wrappers prove to be useless.
1 By "commodity library" I mean a library that provides a level of abstraction commonly found in other libraries that serve a similar purpose.
There are two situations where I think it's worth having your own wrappers:
1) You've looked at several different mutex implementations on different systems/libraries, you've established a common set of requirements that they can all satisfy and that are sufficient for your software. Then you define that abstraction and implement it one or more times, knowing that you've planned ahead for flexibility. The rest of your code is written to rely only on your abstraction, not on any incidental properties of the current implementation(s). I have done this in the past, although not in code I can show you.
A classic example of this "least common interface" would be to change rename in the filesystem abstraction, on the basis that Windows cannot implement an atomic rename-over-an-existing-file. So your code must not rely on atomic rename-replacement if you might in future swap out your current *nix implementation for one that can't do that. You have to restrict the interface from the start.
When done right, this kind of interface can considerably ease any kind of future porting, either to a new system or because you want to change your third-party library dependencies. However, an entire framework is probably too big to successfully do this with -- essentially you'd be inventing and writing your own framework, which is not a trivial task and conceivably is a larger task than writing your actual software.
2) You want to be able to mock/stub/sham/spoof/plagiarize/whatever the next clever technique is, the mutex in tests, and decide that you will find this easier if you have your own wrapper thrown over it than if you're trying to mess with symbols from third-party libraries, or that are built-in.
Note that defining your own functions called wrap_pthread_mutex_init, wrap_pthread_mutex_lock etc, that precisely mimic pthread_* functions, and take exactly the same parameters, might satisfy (2) but doesn't satisfy (1). And anyway, doing (2) properly probably requires more than just wrappers, you usually also want to inject the dependencies into your code.
Doing extra work under the heading of flexibility, without actually providing for flexibility, is pretty much a waste of time. It can be very difficult or even provably impossible to implement one threading environment in terms of another one. If you decide in future to switch from pthreads to std::thread in C++, then having used an abstraction that looks exactly like the pthreads API under different names is (approximately) no help whatsoever.
For another possible change you might make, implementing the full pthreads API on Windows is sort of possible, but probably more difficult than only implementing what you actually need. So if you port to Windows, all your abstraction saves you is the time to search and replace all calls in the rest of your software. You're still going to have to (a) plug in a complete Posix implementation for Windows, or (b) do the work to figure out what you actually need, and only implement that. Your wrapper won't help with the real work.
I've just finished a phase in my project where I wrote a small infrastructure to carry out a certain task, made of a core class with several auxiliary classes.
The C++'ness is quite basic - single inheritance, some STL containers, that's it.
No threads - client runs the show.
What I would like to do now is wrap it all up in a DLL, version it, and use
it as a standalone unit. I'd like that seperation in order to track changes and
development better, and perhaps for other projects as well.
As I don't have experience with classes in DLLs, I would like to hear yours:
What's your approach to this problem?
Specifically:
Is it worth the trouble?
Do you do that often or not at all?
What about compatibiliy issues (like clients compiled using a different compiler)?
I'm not really asking for a debate (though that's the probable outcome), but rather an advice from experience.
Thanks for your time.
I find it hard to see any benefit with this. I can see plenty of problems:
No type checking across a DLL boundary. Any version mismatches will result in runtime failures, harder to detect than compile time failures.
Extra deployment headaches. You may be tempted to update some but not all modules and so deal with complex dependencies.
All clients that want to use these DLLs must use the same compiler.
Only make this change if you can identify benefits that outweigh the negatives.
C++ code is not binary compatible between compilers, it's generally no use creating DLLs exposing C++ classes that aren't built as part of the project that uses them.
If you want to create a Windows DLL with a well-defined object-oriented interface that the rest of the world can use, make it a COM inproc server.
I'm interning in a company for the summer and I've to look at different ways of looking at the current codebase (C++,MFC, around 100K lines) and using state machines to model the current program.
I've been reading a couple papers and CPP2XMi looks like it may be some use to try to build sequence diagrams as a start.
The end goal is to gauge the feasibility of moving away from microsoft as an O/S and look at development (possibly in another language) on *nix.
I've also started looking at the MFC dependancies to see if we could just port the current C++ code.
I've had the program running through WINE and performance-wise, it seems acceptable but I still need to investigate other solutions as this will only work on X86 while we have other solutions running running on MIPS and ARM.
Any other ideas or caveats I could look at?
The first thing I would look at is where do I use mfc and other non portable stuff. If the only place there is mfc is in the interface layer for example you then can isolate the work.
If there is no such separation I would look at the fesablity of creating some sections of the code that are isolated and portable. Once you have a base of portability you can begin abstracting all of the services rendered by the non portable code. Any way you slice it though MFC to Nix is a big change and will require a significant amount of work. One other possibility is to see if you can run it under a windows emulator.
From reading through the wxWidgets book, it seems very similar to MFC. You might have a look at it.
I would first look into whether the GUI is separated from the rest of the application. With MFC, this includes limiting use of utility classes like CString to GUI-only code.
If the code is well-factored in this way, the easiest thing to do is probably to leave the MFC GUI code alone, and simply build a new GUI for your other platforms using the native GUI library of choice for each new platform. This will give a proper native appearance and behavior to the application that is really difficult to achieve any other way.
If the application logic is intermixed with the GUI code, it's a good time to ask whether you could devote resources to creating a proper separation, with the goal of doing the above once you've achieved separation. This is risky, from a business standpoint, because it can look like you have made a lot of effort and merely ended up back where you started. It isn't until you start work on the new GUI atop the refactored application that your sponsors see any real progress.
You can also look at portable GUI libraries like wxWidgets and Qt.
I have programmed for both MFC and wxWidgets, and they are conceptually very similar. I have never had to port code from one to the other, but I did once port from Borland's OWL to MFC, which was a similar experience. This sort of thing is not particularly difficult; it's just a grind. I can only recommend doing it when you have multiple reasons for dropping the old GUI library. For instance, perhaps you were also thinking of dropping Visual C++ entirely, or switching from Professional to Express, losing access to MFC. If you were planning on sticking with VC++ Professional (or above), it becomes difficult to justify throwing away your MFC GUI.
I once ported a big COM library from MFC to portable code. I used the STL and boost to replace all the MFC bits. For example, CString => std::string and VARIANT => boost::any.
It took forever, but it was mostly straightforward replacement and tweaking. Fortunately it didn't have any gui code-- it was a data processing library.
We have a core library in the form of a DLL that is used by more than one client application. It has gotten somewhat bloated and some applications need only a tiny fraction of the functionality that this DLL provides. So now we're looking at dividing this behemoth into smaller components.
My question is this: Can anyone recommend a path to take to divide this bloated DLL into a set of modules that have some interdepencies but do not necessarily require all other modules?
Here are the options as I see them but I'm hoping someone can offer other possibilities:
Create a "core" dll and several "satellite" dlls which use the core and possibly other satellite DLLs.
Subdivide the contents of the bloated DLL into static libraries that the main DLL uses (to maintain the same functionality) but apps that don't want to use the bloated version can assemble the static libraries they need into their own dll or into the app itself.
I was hesitant to mention this but I think it may be important to note that the app uses MFC.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Somewhat related to your question is this question, about splitting up a very large C module into smaller ones.
How do you introduce unit testing into a large, legacy (C/C++) codebase?
It seems your question has to do with the larger question of breaking some large blob of code into a more modular system. The link above is definitely recommended reading.
Without having all the details it is a little hard to help but here is what I would do in your situation
provide both static and dll versions of whate3ver you release - for MT and single threaded.
try to glean from the disparate clients which items should be grouped together to provide reasonable segmentation - without having layers of dependencies.
having a "core" module sounds like a good idea - and make sure you don't have too many levels of dependencies - you might want to keep it simple.
You may find after the exercise that one big dll is actually reasonable.
Another consideration is that maintaining multiple DLLs and both static libs and DLLs will hugely increase the complexity of maintenance.
Are you going to be releasing them all at once every time, or are they going to be mix and match? Be careful here - and know that you could create testing issues
If no one is complaining about the size of the DLL then you might want to consider leaving it as is.