I'm currently working on a project in .NET that communicates with native C++ libraries through the use of a C++/CLI project. However, moving forward with this project, I would like to be able to expose specific modules of the native C++ code, preferably with as little extra implementation as possible, while maintaining re-usability and scalability.
I've done some research into both uses, but cannot work out which would be better for solving this purpose. Could someone explain which approach is best suited to this scenario, if any?
If you want to wrap native C++ code for .NET, use C++/CLI. For simple C-style API it is possible to use PInvoke.
If you want to wrap native C++ code both for .NET and COM clients (like Internet Explorer, MS Office, scripting languages etc.), use COM.
To my opinion, writing COM wrapper is more complicated task. But COM guru can have another opinion - it depends on your experience in these technologies.
Related
One of our products is a C++ application - using MFC (MDI). (And we skin the application with Codejock.)
I've been asked if we could "port the application to .NET" - so it would be possible to use, e.g., C# libraries and other .NET features. I know there is something called "C++.NET" - or maybe (if I understand it right) it should be called "managed C++" now. But I don't know much about it.
My question: Is this at all possible? Could we run an MFC-application as "managed C++"? (And can an application using Codejock be run as a "managed C++" application?) There is some other threads about this, but I haven't been able to find "a definitive answer"...
I'd be very grateful for some good advice! :-)
As far as I understand, you want to keep your MFC/Codejock GUI and allow the use of .NET libraries from you application's C++ code.
This is indeed possible, but for a complete application that is currently compiled as "native" C++ it is probably not such a good idea to convert all of it to being compiled with C++/CLI. "It Just Works (IJW)" is a nice meme, but it doesn't work always :-)
We have the same situation, namely a C++/MFC/Codejock application that needs to call into .NET assemblies. This works mostly without problems:
We have C++/CLI modules that offer a native C++ DLL interface for the native C++ code to call into and that then route these call on to an assembly written in C#.
We also have C++/CLI assemblies that offer a .NET interface for the C# code and then call back into pure native modules.
It should also be possible to have a single (say, exe) project that is compiled natively and you only enable the /clr switch for selected cpp files that need managed interop. And at the end you link everything together. Since we've never mixed it that way, I can't really say anything about this approach however. What I can say for sure though is that it is possible to compile parts on a module as /clr and parts as native.
I faced a similar problem some years ago, and found that unless for trivial cases converting from un-managed to managed or reverse side was really painfull. I ended leaving the two worlds each in its side, and simply use interop to have the COM - .NET compatibility.
It was not very nice, but a lot cheaper. The conclusion that we should wait a major evolution to consider a full rewriting.
Hi we have a c++ project (library) which has to exposed to .net languages or may be other languages (old vb for example but this is not very important). Two options are write COM wrapper for the project or managed c++ wrapper. Which one to choose?
One great advantage, for example, of using manged c++ is using .net collections classes to pass as a parameters instead of enormous complexity of collections in COM.
The term "COM wrapper" doesn't make much sense. If want to create a COM class, there's no reason why you should first create a vanilla C++ class and then create a COM class that wraps it and mimics it. That's one advantage of COM over managed C++: in managed C++, you DO have to create a vanilla C++ class (for unmanaged clients, unless you don't have any) and a managed wrapper class for it (for managed clients).
In my opinion, the deciding factors for when you should use COM or managed C++ for interop are easy:
Use COM if you want to create a completely new unmanaged class (not a wrapper) that can be consumed by clients in any language.
Use managed C++ if want to create a completely new class (not a wrapper) in which you mix a lot of managed and unmanaged code.
So you see, the word "wrapper" shouldn't come up anywhere in your design. Wrappers suck :)
If you're COM collections are enormously complex, you may want to rethink how you approach COM collection management. Totally different issue there, but that being said...
Your mention of old-VB not being very important is more critical to your answer than you may think. Old VB doesn't speak .NET, but it does speak COM very well. If you foresee having to go that road, that is a major push to the COM side.
I'm not a fan-per'se of managed C++ only because it is about the most non-portable, hard-to-manage, hard to read dialect of the language you'll likely ever encounter. However, if the core code in your library is simple enough, you could probably get it up and running in managed C++ with reasonable effort. The more dynamic the library is, the harder it will be to port to .NET management. However...
Once it is there, a COM wrapper can get you back to your COM clients like legacy VB without too many problems provided you took wise choices when doing the port and kept things easily wrappable along the way.
Thats about the most round-about way I can say (with great pain) managed C++ is likely your best option, but I would seriously gel on it before throwing down that gauntlet.
To better myself I am attempting to make my dll's COM compliant, I thought I'd just need to extend/implement a few interfaces and job done but now I am at a cross roads,
1) Should I learn MIDL?
2) Should I install the ATL (I am running VC++Express)?
3) Carry on reading the C++ tutorials (http://progtutorials.tripod.com/COM.htm) and hope my Express edition is too limited?
I was interested in transferring native C++ to Android and Java and read that the libraries would need to expose either static 'C' style functions or implement COM.
Android is Linux based operating system... It does not support DLLs and COM.
So no you can't go via COM. You need to learn how to use JNI.
1) Yes. If you are going to define new interfaces, you pretty much have to. It's not impossible to do without MIDL, but it's way harder than to learn basic MIDL.
2) Yes, please do. It'll hide much of the boiler plate code (which is tedious to write, and error prone).
3) I would recommend the book Essential COM by Don Box. It's awesome. Also, a great companion to that book is Essential IDL by Martin Gudgin.
As for VC++ Express - I have never used them. I guess it's possible to do COM with it, but with limited tool/library support.
I'm just starting my first C++ project. I'm using Visual Studio 2008. It's a single-form Windows application that accesses a couple of databases and initiates a WebSphere MQ transaction. I basically understand the differences among ATL, MFC, Win32 (I'm a little hazy on that one actually) and CLR, but I'm at a loss as to how I should choose.
Is one or more of these just there for backward-compatibility?
Is CLR a bad idea?
Any suggestions appreciated.
Edit:
I've chosen C++ for this project for reasons I didn't go into in the post, which are not entirely technical. So, assuming C++ is the only/best option, which should I choose?
It depends on your needs.
Using the CLR will provide you with the most expressive set of libraries (the entire .NET framework), at the cost of restricting your executable to requiring the .NET framework to be installed at runtime, as well as limiting you to the Windows platform (however, all 4 listed technologies are windows only, so the platform limitation is probably the least troublesome).
However, CLR requires you to use the C++/CLI extensions to the C++ language, so you'll, in essense, need to learn some extra language features in order to use this. Doing so gives you many "extras," such as access to the .net libraries, full garbage collection, etc.
ATL & MFC are somewhat trickier to decide between. I'd refer you to MSDN's page for choosing in order to decide between them. The nice thing about ATL/MFC is that you don't need the .NET framework, only the VC/MFC runtimes to be installed for deployment.
Using Win32 directly provides the smallest executables, with the fewest dependencies, but is more work to write. You have the least amount of helper libraries, so you're writing more of the code.
Win32 is the raw, bare-metal way of doing it. It's tedious, difficult to use, and has a lot of small details you need to remember otherwise things will fail in relatively mysterious ways.
MFC builds upon Win32 to provide you an object-oriented way of building your application. It's not a replacement for Win32, but rather an enhancement - it does a lot of the hard work for you.
System.Windows.Forms (which is what I assume you meant by CLR) is completely different but has large similarities to MFC from its basic structure. It's by far the easiest to use but requires the .NET framework, which may or may not be a hindrance in your case.
My recommendation: If you need to avoid .NET, then use MFC, otherwise use .NET (in fact, in that case, I'd use C# as it's much easier to work with).
As far as C++ goes, I would use WTL. It's lightweght and you will have few (if any) dependencies, making it easy to ship and install. I find it very satisfying when my app consists of a single EXE that will run on most versions of Windows, but this may not be a concern to you.
If you choose to go .NET instead, then C# is almost certainly the way to go.
More in WTL here:
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/wtl/wtl4mfc1.aspx
I would be very curious as to why you would do this in C++ at all. Based on your brief description, C# sounds like a much more appropriate choice.
Just to elaborate a bit, look at the link you gave describing the C++ CLR. The top rated answer notes (accurately, in my opinion) that C++ is appropriate for "kernel, games, high-performance and server apps" - none of which seems to describe what you're doing.
MFC, ATL, etc are going to be supported in the sense that, yes you'll be able to compile your app on future versions of Visual Studio and run them on future versions of Windows. But they're not supported in the sense that there's not a lot of new development going on in the API or the language the same way there is in the CLR and C#.
There is nothing wrong with CLR. Like others here I'd suggest C# but as you have reasons for sticking with C++ then using the .NET framework is several thousand times easier than messing with ATL/MFC if you're not already familiar with them (IMO).
It may be worth mentioning that if you're using C++/CLR then you're not really using C++ at all. C++/CLR compiles to CIL just like C#. I've never used it myself but I believe its purpose is to allow you to compile legacy code and make it easily available to new .NET code rather than allow new code work with old C++ executables. There are other methods of calling native code from .NET which, perhaps, you should explore.
The modern (2021) answer to this question would appear to be to use C++/WinRT instead of C++/CLR (or C++/CLI or C++/CX... jeez Microsoft):
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/cpp-and-winrt-apis/intro-to-using-cpp-with-winrt
C++/WinRT is an entirely standard modern C++17 language projection for Windows Runtime (WinRT) APIs, implemented as a header-file-based library, and designed to provide you with first-class access to the modern Windows API. With C++/WinRT, you can author and consume Windows Runtime APIs using any standards-compliant C++17 compiler.
...
C++/WinRT is Microsoft's recommended replacement for the C++/CX language projection
It's basically standard C++ but the UI is defined with XAML.
Still though, as with the other answers, it would appear that using C# is really microsoft's favorite approach. C++/WinRT really looks like it's almost C# anyways.
Are their any libraries which provide functionality similar to mono but for the c++ language? I know boost exists, but I like mono much more than boost.
I'm looking to do more than what's available in the base library set, like play sound more easily (crossplatform), GUI, load images, time, etc. I guess I am looking for what people might consider an engine or a large library.
Mono is a .NET implementation. Mono is NOT a library.
There is NO Mono for C++. At least, not yet.
I think you want a multi-platform framework, such as Qt
If you're wanting to work with Managed C++ a la .Net, then you would just use Mono. They have a page describing how to go about it. The only catch is that you have to compile on Windows, as there is not yet any flavor of GCC that outputs .Net CLI for C++.
To be honest, though, if you're going to use Mono, you might as well move into C#. It's a much cleaner language, IMO.
CLI is only able to host C++ compiled code on all supported platforms as long as the compiled code only contains CIL not native code.
for more detail visit
http://www.mono-project.com/CPlusPlus
I'm not sure about your precise requirements, but in terms of large multi-purpose packages: Qt has been mentioned by a few folks. wxWidgets (formerly wxWindows) is another option. GTK is multiplatform.
As you use the word "engine" (often a game-related term), you might be interested in SDL, which has been used by numerous games, professional and amateur alike. SFML is an option. ClanLib is another long-lived library I've heard of, though I'll admit to knowing little about it.
Try the STL collections...Has nothing to do with .NET, but they are a nice collection of collections (lol) and make C++ life easier.
It sounds like what you are really looking for is a C++ framework that offers the kinds of functionality found in the .NET/Mono framework. Qt is a popular choice.
On the topic of C++ interoperability, Mono has recently made some pretty big strides with CXXI.
(From this posting): The short story is that the new CXXI technology allows C#/.NET developers to:
Easily consume existing C++ classes from C# or any other .NET
language
Instantiate C++ objects from C#
Invoke C++ methods in C++ classes from C# code
Invoke C++ inline methods from C# code (provided your library is compiled with -fkeep-inline-functions or that you provide a surrogate
library)
Subclass C++ classes from C#
Override C++ methods with C# methods
Expose instances of C++ classes or mixed C++/C# classes to both C# code and C++ as if they were native code.
CXXI is the result of two summers of work from Google's Summer of Code towards improving the interoperability of Mono with the C++ language.