I'm working on a really old program for my employer that requires a manifest file. Unfortunately the project was developed in .Net 2.0 on VS 2005 (Academic Edition) and migrating/updating to a newer... whatever would be time consuming and the really not worth it.
I've found ways to add a manifest file to a .exe manually (which is kind of a headache and I would prefer to avoid that route if that is at all possible for me to automatically include a manifest file into the application? I've found a few things on it but the options they reference seem to be missing from the Academic Edition.
I've seen this direction but there doesn't seem to be a manifest tool node (or I'm doing it wrong, could be either one). I found some images the closest I could get was this:
And it's missing the Manifest node that was referenced.
Is this possible to do with Academic Edition, or am I just hosed into having to do it the Open .exe in VS/add as a resource method? If I have to do it that way, that's fine but if there's a better way then I would prefer the better way.
Related
Our projects in our company are all built based off a thing we call a 'Project Scaffold'. It's got all the base required code for all sites, basic folder structure and all other things similar to that.
At the moment, we have a repository for this 'Project Scaffold' and each time we want to create a new project, we copy this project into a new folder, and rename all occurrences of the name 'ProjectScaffold' within the project. As you can tell, this is quite time consuming and can sometimes cause errors if we miss out a single occurrence of 'ProjectScaffold'.
This project will need to have all the default dependencies which is why having a full project that we copy is working for us at the moment.
I have looked into the possibility of creating a visual studio template but I can't seem to find a good way of accomplishing it.
We have been thinking if there was a way to possibly implement it through a NuGet Package, however I feel as if this would be either extremely difficult or impossible.
If possible, it would also be something that would be usable in Visual Studio 2011
Simply File-->Export Template :)
You can then customize the generated zip file to suit your needs.
More on this on the Creating Project and Item templates on msdn
I have an existing MFC product and am planning on supporting a couple of other national languages thru the use of resource-only DLLs. I've read a number of articles and tutorials on how to go about this, but admit that I don't have a lot of in-depth knowledge of Windows resources (mostly just use VS 2008's graphical interface).
The major area that I am trying to understand is that it seems like all of the resource source files (i.e., resource.rc) for these DLLs -- and the main program -- should be sharing the same copy of resource.h. After all, all those IDD_xxx values have to be consistent, and it seems like making updates to the resources would be even more complicated by having to keep multiple resource.h files in sync!
So am I correct on this, and does anyone have any tips for how to best implement this? Should I modify resource.rc in the DLL projects to point to the "master" resource.h in the main program directory?
Yes, use the same resource.h file for sure.
One way is to just copy the resources you need to be translated into the the new resource project--stuff like menus, strings, dialogs. Bitmaps and icons probably don't need to be translated unless you put some text on them that is language specific. If you know your localse, at program startup you can call AfxSetResourceHandle() with the resource DLL you manually load.
Another way to approach the problem if you have a multitude of DLLs and EXEs is to use binary resource editing tools. What they do is create token files from your resources. Your translators edit the token file with the binary editing tool. When all is done, you run a tool to apply the translation to the binaries. Basically, you don't distribute resource DLLs, but distribute different versions of your DLLs for each language. The tools are smart enough so that if you make a change like add a string or dialog, it will get picked up and your translator can see that he needs to translate something new. The previously translated work will be saved in the token files. This is how we do it at my shop. We used to use Microsoft's Localization Resource toolkit. I don't know if we still use it or not since it is somebody else's responsibility now.
I found the MSDN article ID 198846 a good starting point for sharing of resources via a dll, though it does need updating for newer versions of visual studio, it was quite easy to follow and understand.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/198846
I installed WiX 3.5 with Visual Studio 2010, as I've read lots of people saying that WiX is a great alternative to that hellhole that is the Visual Studio Setup project, but it sure seems like it requires a lot more effort to make even the simplest installer. Am I missing something?
In a VS setup project, I can add a project output to my ProgramFilesFolder, and VS automatically sweeps up all the dependent dll's from the other projects in the solution, as well as 3rd-party libraries and such. After reading this from the (apparently somewhat out of date) online docs, I thought maybe WiX finally had something similar, but it doesn't actually pull in dependent libraries--it just makes it easier to add that single project's output to a fragment without a lot of extra typing.
So the best I can see to do is manually add to my WiX setup project every single project in my solution that I want in the installer (and set Harvest to true, since that doesn't seem to be the default). I'd probably write a little perl script to do that. Then I have to determine all the non-project dependent dll's somehow (probably easiest to look at the VS setup project for that) and add by hand some wxs code to include them (since apparently the WiX project only handles references to projects, not raw dll's). Then edit in a simple UI, for which there are samples on the web I can work from. And code for shortcuts.
Is there a better way?
This is a very subjective and long answer type question. From a quality and capability perspective, WiX kills VDPROJ. From a learning curve perspective, not so much.
Check out IntallShield 2010LE ( Limited Edition / Free ) or look at Industrial Strength Windows Installer XML ( IsWiX ) (Disclaimer: I am the coordinator ) I use this tool to do the majority of my heavy lifting and then write small amounts of WiX by hand to glue it all together.
I have a Java background so I’m used to having Maven handle all problem around downloading and keeping dependencies up to date. But in the .NET environment I have not yet found a good way to manage all these external dependencies.
The main problem here is that I mass produce solutions and they all tend to depend on the same third party dll’s. But I don’t want to maintain separate copies of each component under each solution. So I need a way of linking all the different solutions to the same set of dll’s.
I realized that one solution might be to include the external libraries in a ”library project” that is included in all solutions and let the other projects references them through it. (Or just make sure to reference the external dll’s from the same place for all projects.)
But are there any better ways to do this?
(Preferably using some sort of plug-in for Visual Studio.)
I’ve looked at the Visual Studio Dependency Manager and it seems like a perfect match but have anyone tried it for real? I’ve also seen the .NET ports of Maven, but unfortunately I was not too impressed by the status of those. (But please go ahead and recommend them anyone if you think I should give them another try.)
So what would be the smartest way to tackle this problem?
Update:
I realized that I needed to explain what I meant with linking to the same set of dll’s.
One of the things I'm trying to achieve here is to avoid that the different solutions are referencing different versions of each component. If I update a component to a new version, it should be updated for all solutions upon next build. This would force me to make sure all solutions are up to date with the latest components.
Update 2:
Note that this is an old question asked before tools like NuGet or OpenWrap existed. If anyone is willing to provide a more up-to-date, please go ahead and I will change the accepted answer.
Find some place to store the assemblies. For example, I store the .Net core assemblies like so:
<branch>\NetFX\2.0527\*
<branch>\NetFX\3.0\*
<branch>\NetFX\3.5\*
<branch>\NetFX\Silverlight 2\*
<branch>\NetFX\Silverlight 3\*
Use the ReferencePath property in MSBuild (or AdditionalReferencePath in Team Build) to point your projects at the appropriate paths. For simplicity and easy maintenance, I have 1 *.targets file that knows about every such directory; all of my projects Import that file.
Make sure your version control strategy (branching, merging, local<->server mappings) keeps the relative paths between your projects & your reference paths constant.
EDIT
In response to the update in the question, let me add one more step:
4) Make sure every assembly reference in every project file uses the full .Net strong name and nothing else.
Bad:
<Reference Include="Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo">
<SpecificVersion`>False</SpecificVersion>
<HintPath>..\..\..\..\..\..\..\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft SQL Server\100\Shared\Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo.dll</HintPath>
</Reference>
Good:
<Reference Include="Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo, Version=10.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=89845dcd8080cc91, processorArchitecture=MSIL" />
Advantages of the latter format:
Using a HintPath in a collaborative development environment will inevitably lead to situations where "it works for me" but not others. Especially your build server. Omitting it forces you to get your reference paths correct or it won't compile.
Using a weak name invites the possibility of "DLL hell." Once you use strong names then it's safe to have multiple versions of the same assembly in your reference paths because the linker will only load ones that match every criterion. In addition, if you decide to update some assemblies in place (instead of adding copies), then you'll be notified of any breaking changes at compile time instead of whenever the bugs start coming in.
Adding to what everybody else is saying, it basically comes down to two things:
Making sure that all developers have the same versions of external libraries
Making sure that all developers have the external libraries located in the same place (at least, relative to the source code)
As Richard Berg points out, you can use ReferencePath and/or AdditionalReferencePath to help solve #2. If you're using msbuild in your build process (in our case, we're using CruiseControl instead of MS Team Build), you can also pass ReferencePath to it on the command line. To solve #1, I've found svn:externals to be useful (if you're using SVN).
My experience with Maven is that it's way overkill for most purposes.
I usually have a separate folder structure on the source control for extrenal or Internal dependencies, and these filders have the assemblies according to build or version number for example
public\External\libraries\Nunit\2.6\
or
Public\Internal\libraries\Logger\5.4.312\
and inside the solutions all the projects that need to use any of the dependencies just adds a reference to that assemblies in the public internal or extrenal folders.
I´ve tweaked the VC++ settings so that all of my actual code will go to one place, while compiler generated binaries will go to another. This ncb file is the exception though. It is a quite large IDE generated binary file (Intellisense database). I can´t seem to be able to move it anywhere other than the solution folder. I´ve reasearched on google and found a few references saying that this is impossible. Does anyone have a workaround?
Visual Studio doesn't allow you to move that file. This article on CodeProject shows how one person worked around this problem, by creating a "poor man's" version of symbolic links. This involves hooking Windows' CreateFile function. This approach seems like overkill to me; I think I would just learn to live with this limitation if possible.