I need your advices what to use - Layered Service Provider or just load mine DLL in all
process and hook necessary functions using, NCodeHook or EasyHook library.
This is needed for inspection of HTTP traffic.
P.S. This need to be done for commercial application
Thanks!
Before making a decision you need to consider the following:
Code hooking:
AV doesn't like code hooking, if you're using a library that has external DLLs, run a check with AV total before committing to it.
Make sure the library's license works for you, for example, for LGPL you won't be able to embed the library as static without becoming GPL yourself.
I heard people managed to hook Metro apps, it's something to investigate.
If you have another code hooking app, it may conflict.
LSP:
The default MS sample/installer is broken.
You may get something working on a VM or fresh install, but to get LSP working properly across all OS and browsers, will take 6-12 months.
Will not work with Metro apps.
In Komodia we use a combo of LSP/WFP for our SDK, knowing what I know now, if I'd go back 4 years, I'd use LSP all over again.
Good luck.
Using Easyhook will be a nice way to do it check the following http://www.sghaida.com/easyhook-for-systemcall-hooking/
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
If you open the page "Graphics and Gaming (Windows)" on microsoft.com
the last category is described as
Legacy Graphics: Technologies that are obsolete and should not be used in new
applications.
This category includes (among others) the following APIs:
GDI
GDI+
OpenGL
What's your opinion? If i want to roll out a new software today it must support Windows XP (still about 50% of all installed systems). Direct2D requires Windows 7/Vista. What else should be used?
I suspect that Microsoft's definition of "legacy" has little to do with what any sensible developer should do, and is instead based on some Grand Rewrite of the Windows API.
Starting at around Windows Vista, Microsoft has been redesigning many of their API's. We now have MMDevAPI as the One True Sound API, WIC is the One True Image File API, etc. From what I've seen/heard, these new API's are much better than the old ones, and the "legacy" systems all work based on the new ones. In Windows Vista and later, DirectSound is entirely based on MMDevAPI, and components that need to read image files do it via WIC.
Windows 8 will have an ARM version, which it appears will support only a subset of the current Windows API. We won't know for sure until Windows on ARM is released, but, based on the libraries included for the ARM platform in Visual Studio 11 (ref: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2012-March/094559.html), it's looking like GDI+ and OpenGL will not be available. GDI is available for linking, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's intact.
This new API's from Vista and later roughly correspond to the libraries in the VS11 ARM target. I'm guessing that anything on that list is there because it's either the latest and greatest way to do what it does, or it's too technically important to discard (for now). Thus, "legacy" is anything that's not the latest and greatest way to do at least one thing.
I'm not sure what is the One True Graphics API. Already we have Direct2D, Direct3D, DirectComposition (which, by the way, is not available until Windows 8), DirectWrite, and DXGI. DXGI seems the closest, but I don't have a deep enough understanding of the graphics API's to say. I suspect gdi32 is technically very difficult to get rid of. How are non-legacy applications meant to find out when part of a window has been revealed and therefore must be painted, without using WM_PAINT, which involves an HDC, and how could a library do that on an application's behalf without replacing its window procedure? How are we meant to make semi-transparent windows without using UpdateLayeredWindow, which takes an HDC? How much does user32 depend on gdi32, and can they really be separated?
From a technical standpoint, Windows can easily get rid of GDI+ and OpenGL, but I'm not convinced that getting rid of OpenGL will work out, even on a new platform that doesn't promise any backward compatibility. It seems too valuable to developers. GDI+ isn't so important, but it's very easy for a third party to provide a replacement.
I would say use any of the API's you listed, and the worst that's likely to happen is that you have to rewrite your UI if you want to port your app to metro or Windows on ARM. GDI is a fine choice if your needs are simple and you'll be coding directly for the Windows API. There aren't many situations where I'd recommend GDI+ over OpenGL as a drawing API. GDI+ is slow, limited, and only available on Windows. The GDI+ API is simpler because it's 2D, so maybe it's worthwhile if you need to do something very simple but with anti-aliasing.
OpenGL isn't deprecated, Microsoft's implementation of it is. Microsoft's implementation is stuck at version 1.1, which is old. The current version of the standard is past version 4. If you want to use OpenGL, it is fully supported by NVidia, ATI, and Intel graphics cards on the Windows desktop, but not in Metro Windows Modern UI apps, is an industry standard, and also works on Mac and Linux. If you need a software fallback implementation, Mesa has got you covered, and it even works on DOS. (Since Mesa can render into memory buffers, there's no reason it won't work in Modern UI apps, but you probably don't want to do this because it can be slow.) One thing of note is that WGL, the API for accessing OpenGL functionality on the Windows desktop, depends on GDI (which is deprecated) so you probably want to use something like FreeGLUT or SDL instead if you want to future-proof your application, which also nets you platform independence.
OpenGL ES is a variant of OpenGL which works on Android and Apple iOS. It is also accessible in JavaScript via WebGL, which Internet Explorer 11 will support (and pretty much every other browser already does.) ANGLE provides a hardware-accelerated implementation of GLES for Windows which piggybacks off of DirectX (version 9 or 11) and thus should work in Modern UI apps as well. Once again, Mesa's got the software implementation covered.
TL;DR: OpenGL is not only not deprecated, it is cross-platform, standard, and has tremendous momentum in the industry. GDI and GDI+, well, not so much.
If you want to support Windows XP, then you're supporting a "legacy" operating system, and as such, using a "legacy" graphics framework is the logical choice.
Even if that weren't true, let's just say that I disagree with the advice given by the linked MSDN article. The "legacy" status here has more to do with which technology the Windows team thinks is cool this week. The status designation of "obsolete" just means that the group responsible is no longer accepting or fulfilling bug reports (except for critical security issues). Not too big of a deal—these technologies have been around long enough that they're fairly feature-complete and stable.
GDI isn't going anywhere, so if you need something rock-solid that is guaranteed to be supported anywhere and everywhere, that's what I would go with.
If you need a bit more 2D capabilities than GDI offers (e.g., alpha channel transparency), then you could consider using GDI+. It's nearly an order of magnitude slower than GDI, but that's not too big of an issue on modern machines with more power than you could ever want. This, too, is going to be supported for a very long time to come.
That said, if I were writing a new app today, I probably wouldn't bother with OpenGL. There's very little that it offers in benefits over Direct2D and DirectWrite, which are both what Microsoft is pushing as the replacements for GDI/GDI+. There might be some benefit to using OpenGL if you absolutely must target Windows XP because as far as I can tell, Direct2D/DirectWrite are only supported on Vista and later, but that's because (as I mentioned originally), Windows XP falls squarely into the "legacy" or "obsolete" camp itself. Alternatively, if you already know OpenGL well and don't have time or the desire to learn Direct2D/DirectWrite, then it might make sense to continue using it in a new application.
Don't let the verbiage of the MSDN article scare you. Choose whatever technology makes the most sense for your specific use case given all of the available information. By the time any of these technologies go away completely, you'll have to re-write the app completely for a dozen other reasons.
Edit: Hmm, it looks like DirectWrite has also been declared (by some people at least) "obsolete" as well, having been replaced by Direct2D. That's funny, it hasn't even been around long enough for me to bother learning it. I guess that only goes to support my earlier argument that "obsolete" simply designates that a particular technology is not what is currently considered to be in vogue by the Microsoft devs.
I'm personally waiting until all the bugs get worked out of this stuff (and we decide on a semi-permanent standard) before I make the switch for any of my applications. Everything I've seen written in DirectDraw or Direct2D has had serious rendering bugs and is a performance nightmare, even on reasonably competent machines. Sure, they only show up sometimes, under the right conditions, but that's too much for me. And I swear, the blurry text shows up all the time. Not being able to read what's on screen is a deal-killer for me and my users. GDI doesn't have this problem, and it's not going anywhere.
Are GDI, GDI+ and OpenGL really obsolete/deprecated?
This is not true for OpenGL. OpenGL 4 allows you to use geometry shaders on winxp. Which isn't possible with DirectX (DirectX 10 and up isn't supported on WInXP). It is also one of the only cross-platform 3D APIs out there.
From a business point of view MS is interested in promoting DirectX since it is their technology that lock Developer into windows platform (they're also interested in making DirectX more attractive for developer, but that's another story). So it makes sense that they aren't keen on promoting OpenGL.
What else should be used?
I'd advise to stop using platform-specific tecnologies when possible. Grab cross-platform framework and use it for your application. There's Qt, GTK, wxWidgets and other toolkits for GUI apps, and SDL(and alternatives) for games. This way when platform developer decide to make ridiculous decision (like not supporting DX10 on WinXP) you dislike, you'll be able to move elsewhere with minimum development cost. Qt is also ridiculously powerful and at the moment I have no reason to use something else for GUI development. Still, situation can change in the future.
In short, while developing for certain platform you should keep in mind that platform developer might have their goals that are not compatible with your wishes. Discovering that your source has become locked into single platform isn't very pleasant experience. Your own goals should be the first priority, and if os developer tries to make you use certain technology you don't like, then you shouldn't support that technology.
Because OpenGL is a standard, it should be considered equally deprecated as C or C++ so it is a matter of time before the entire Windows API -- which today has become a compile once run on every x86 machine API thanks to Wine -- is considered deprecated in favour of .NET and C#.
I use GDI for simple graphics and OpenGL, when I need accelerated 3d.
Another aspect is that Microsoft's build-in implementation of OpenGL is definitely to be considered as deprecated since it is just version 1.1 or something, but that has been for a long time.
Yeah, about OpenGL, it actually outperforms DirectX in many ways both resource and display wise. It will never be promoted by Microsoft because it can't own OpenGL, not to mention most people don't do their research and Microsoft can claim it is old. Truth is opengl is opensource standard and evolves at a much faster rate than closed does because it is more than 1 room of developers paid to work on it. Also Microsoft has contracts with many companies to release using only Microsoft's software, this causes more business for Microsoft and less to use the more advanced OpenGL standard. It is a interesting lock up if you will, Microsoft creates these contracts so that many programs are written in DirectX to keep business for Microsoft, and no company will refuse it because Microsoft has about 80%+ home user market.
Apple has killed Carbon for 64 bit applications. I've got a pile of legacy code that targets carbon UI widgets that I'd like to keep alive for a while. Most of it is in the form of plugins and bundles that will have to go 64-bit in sync with their host platform.
The choice that Apple seems to be assuming is to throw all the legacy code away
and rewrite using Cocoa. It's not going to happen in the short run, if only because
the same legacy code is tied to a PC binding as well.
I'm considering 3 Options
(1) Dive into cocoa, create a compatibility package that supports the small subset
of carbon that I actually need.
(2) use Cocoatron as the new target. In the short run bridge carbon-to-cocotron, and maybe in the longer run convert to cocoatron native for both mac and pc. (ref: http://cocotron.org/)
(3) use QT as the new target. See option (2). (ref: http://qt.nokia.com/)
What I would really prefer is a fourth option, such as a bootleg copy of the 64 bit
Carbon beta that Apple killed, or a compatibility package explicitly intended just
to emulate carbon.
I would recommend you choose option 1. Creating a Cocoa UI wrapper for your code will likely not be as complex as you think. A common way to create a cross-platform app is to create the bulk of the app in cross-platform C++ and use Cocoa/Objective-C++ for the Mac UI and one of the Windows APIs for the Windows UI.
This option also has the advantage that it is fully supported by Apple and the APIs are stable and mature.
Cocotron is a nice idea but as of now it's not mature enough (in my opinion) to provide a robust cross-platform solution. I know there are successes with it but the sample size is small.
Qt is an option. However, it suffers from a very un-Mac-like UI. Using a Qt app on the Mac always feels like a quick port rather than a native app, and this is unlikely to ever change.
The "bootleg Carbon runtime" is just a fantasy, there is simply no way to get that working reliably and absolutely no chance to distribute it. You will need to find another way.
Some articles point to Windows 8 development being HTML-based instead of primarily using native code like C or C++ (as it has been until now) or .NET (as now, or even more so as it would have been in Longhorn, but never was.)
Is this true? Will the core APIs be accessible from Javascript then? What is the primary API / framework for Windows 8?
This is worth asking. When Windows 8 was demonstrated in June, a couple of comments by the presenter scared quite a few developers - or at least turned the Internet into panic mode. I'm surprised this question hasn't been asked here before.
The best article on the topic I have found is Windows 8 for Software Developers on Ars Technica.
The short answer is: it will remain the same.
The long answer is: it will remain the same, but several things will be added. You may want to pursue using those if you're willing to bet on new Microsoft technologies. One particularly interesting one is WinRT, which is a new object-oriented native code API exposed through COM, which is supposed to be a new version of the old flat Win32 API. Details are in the linked article.
It is very, very, very, very unlikely that anything that already exists, especially based on Win32 or .Net, would be removed. That means your existing programs written in .Net or native C++ or Delphi will continue to work fine. It is also unlikely that the primary development platform will be HTML. More likely is that HTML applications will be encourage for specific scenarios - perhaps touchscreen, kiosks and tablets.
I'd encourage you to read the article I linked to above - it covers this in far more detail than any answer here can.
There are three ways to develop for Windows 8, and they all access the same underlying API, the Windows Runtime.
Use C++ and call WinRT functions much like calling Win32 APIs back in the day (you know, yesterday)
Use C# or VB and call what appear to be .NET methods (but aren't)
Use Javascript and call WinRT functions
The UI is built with XAML using a pretty reasonable designer. More details are still coming out: check http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/BUILD/BUILD2011 for videos with detailed coding demos. http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/BUILD/BUILD2011/BPS-1005 is not a bad starting point.
There are 3 language/framework combinations that are all equally supported:
C++ and XAML
C#/VB and XAML
JavaScript and CSS/HTML
All are first class ways to write Windows 8 Metro style applications. Windows Runtime provides direct access to each of these languages and so choice of development environment can be based on familiarity or feature set of the language and not on restricted availability.
Update: I forgot one: C++/Direct3D (for games).
The original quote, in the context of writing a tablet desktop weather gadget application, is that the application uses "our new developer platform, which is, uhh, it's based on HTML5 and JavaScript."
The demonstrator never said a gadget is the preferred type for applications (How many Vista sidebar gadget or Windows 7 desktop gadget have you written in your life? Even when you can write them in simple HTML!), or the platform is the preferred platform for desktop weather gadget applications (How many animation control have you add to your application with video playing requirement? It is THE control used by Windows Explorer to display video!).
Today, after spending a few minutes playing with Windows 8 developer preview, I found that you can use Expression Blend 5 to easily auto-generate metro-styled applications in HTML and Javascript. Also in Visual Studio you can create exactly looking applications in Silverlight. :)
I am very excited!!! Go Windows 8! :)
What GUI toolkit does Valve use for Steam? Is it Qt? I am interested in using the same toolkit for a project.
According to Valve itself:
"VGUI is Valve's proprietary Graphical User Interface. All Source and Steam applications use VGUI to draw windows, dialogs and menus. It also handles localization: the displaying of text in the user's preferred language. "
That's interesting, maybe if you guys do some research you can have it working in your programming language. I'll download the SDK to see if I can make it work with Java :)
http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/VGUI_Documentation
Having had experience with the Source engine I know that Valve have an library called VGUI which they use for all their games and many of their tools (when in game the library sits on top of the Source renderer, when in tools it sits on top of the Windows API I believe). Although I can’t answer the question with 100% certainty I suspect that this is what they use for Steam as well (I seem to recall some Steam updates that mentioned VGUI) – I would be surprised if the new beta uses a different library.
Even if it is not using VGUI, given what I know of Valve I would think they will have written something else entirely in-house.
So, it is (almost certainly) proprietary and highly unlikely to ever be available for third party use (unless you have the funds to buy a Source engine license).
Steam only runs on Windows and predates QT for Windows, so I'd have to guess something else.
Since Steam has had the same GUI since 2003, chances are it uses some variant of MFC. It also uses an embedded Internet Explorer web browser for its Store and Community sections.
However, I can't give any guarantees about what the version currently in Beta uses. It looks quite a bit different and includs the Webkit rendering engine instead of using IE. It may use Webkit for everything rather than drawing their own GUIs.
Does this answer the question?
http://games.slashdot.org/story/10/02/25/0640233/Steam-UI-Update-Beta-Drops-IE-Rendering-For-WebKit