I have this old VB6 project that is composed of a few DLLs, OCXs, and GUIs.
There is a GUI component that includes this in it's VBP file:
Type=Exe
Reference=*\G{00020430-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}#2.0#0#C:\Windows\SysWOW64\stdole2.tlb#OLE Automation
Object={EAB22AC0-30C1-11CF-A7EB-0000C05BAE0B}#1.1#0; ieframe.dll
Object={3050F1C5-98B5-11CF-BB82-00AA00BDCE0B}#4.0#0; mshtml.tlb
Reference=*\G{64E54C86-D847-48F7-9AE5-D6C9B8E6A3A2}#3.0#0#..\..\bin\Crypt.dll#Crypt
Reference=*\G{B3E7F95C-B6D9-458E-B4D4-5272759B139A}#4.0#0#..\..\bin\SpeechMike.dll#SpeechMike_DLL
Object={831FDD16-0C5C-11D2-A9FC-0000F8754DA1}#2.1#0; MSCOMCTL.OCX
Object={AB4F6C60-4898-11D2-9692-204C4F4F5020}#29.0#0; Ccrpsld.ocx
Object={48E59290-9880-11CF-9754-00AA00C00908}#1.0#0; msinet.ocx
Object={9C526969-AA6E-4D61-BAFA-117FD20C2B38}#3.0#0; SpeechMike.ocx
The Reference settings are a pain since they always change from one machine to the other. I mean, the GUID '9C526969-AA6E-4D61-BAFA-117FD20C2B38', for the last one as an example, will be something on my system, but something else on somebody else's machine.
For now, to make it work, I erase References to Crypt.dll and SpeechMike.dll. Also Object SpeechMike.ocx. Otherwise, Visual studio looks for something that does not exists. Then in "project > references" I check both Crypt and SpeechMike and the Reference goes back to the VBP with the proper GUID and version. Finally, in 'project > components' I add the OCX and I'm good to go.
Am I wrong about that? How can I share the project with some else without going through hoops and loops to start the project?
I'm using MS Visual Basic 6 (part of VS 6 enterprise).
This sounds like "failure to maintain binary compatibility." Normally you only do this to yourself, but of course it can be a bigger headache if multiple people are compiling your libraries from the source Project files.
When you create ActiveX EXEs, DLLs and OCXs you need to create a "base" version where type and class ID values (GUIDs) get assigned. The documentation even suggests that you do this leaving the procedures empty: just a comment line or something so the IDE does not remove the empty declarations.
You don't have to use an "empty" base reference library, it can be one with full code in it.
Once you have compiled this baseline library, you'd exit and save your Project. Then rename this "empty" library as something else and from there keep it along with your Project source files.
After this you re-open the Project and go into Project Properties and on the Component tab change the Compatibility setting to Binary Compatibility and in the box there enter the full path and name of your compiled baseline library. Save the Project. Now you can add code and compile the "real" library to be used by other programs.
When you distribute these libraries (DLLs, OCXs) to somebody else in source code form so that they can compile them you must provide this renamed compiled baseline library along with the source code files, VBP file, resource files, etc.
From there your GUIDs will be stable until you make a change to something that breaks binary compatibility (changing a method's argument list, etc.).
There is more detail on this in the online Help (MSDN Library). See:
Using Visual Basic|Component Tools Guide|Creating ActiveX Components|Debugging, Testing, and Deploying Components|Version Compatibility in ActiveX Components
Related
Is there anyway within Visual Studio / TFS to identify which project produces which dll?
I'm aware you can look under a particular project's properties and see what the name of the dll is, but in the circumstance where you have loads and loads of projects this doesn't seem very efficient.
I've got the situation where I've got a project that references a dll, which includes a method I want to examine, but I don't know what project produces this dll.
Unfortunately, no. The only way I know is that you may could use a decompile extension. (Strongly not recommend to use) Through the source code after decompile, you can view namespace and judge which project produces the dll. (Under normal circumstances)
And you may also have to face some problems such as:
Legal issues
Need to pay for the extension
Only work for C#/.Net
The source code may be confusion and not standard
This should be a one time activity, you can go ahead and take a look into the project file, in case of C# project the csproj file.
If you do not want to do it opening each file, then i would say write a small tool to read all the project files and look for the name.
BTW, this will be different for different projects, and you need to find out the proper location to look.
I am a Visual Studio noob. My background is more Unix-related and mostly used to building things via scons or make. I don't even have much Eclipse experience.
Anyway, I am frustrated how it seems very difficult to move files between projects in VS. (I am running Visual Studio 2013). For example, suppose I have a ProjectXRel (release) and I want a ProjectXDev (development). I want them both to be runnable, and the dev version might have just a few editing changes that differ it from the rel version.
The intuitive thought is to just copy the files from ProjectXRel to create ProjectXDev, but VS seems to fight me on that (it wants to rename all the namespaces to the title of the project).
Also, some of the files, like .cs files derived from .dbml via OR designer, seem uncopyable, and rely on one replicating the process of using the utility to having valid files. I'm used to a project being defined by its files, but that's not really the case in VS. Instead it seems defined by process steps used to create and organize the files.
Also, do serious developers just use command line calls and powershell? That's seems harder, but at least you know what the %#$$# is going on.....
So, the basic question is, how does one replicate an existing project to produce a similar one for development purposes? (I know source control such as git could help with that, but that's not an option for this situation.)
Thanks!
You should be using the same project for both Development and Release.
The things that are different between Development and Release should be stored in a config file (web.config or app.config, depending on what type of project).
You should then be using Configuration Transformations to transform that .config file into Development or Release.
In Visual Studio, right click on the project and click Add New Item, select "Application Configuration File".
In this file you can put connection strings or key/value pair settings in the AppSettings element (MSDN Link).
Once you have your basic settings defined, you can then right click on the config file and click Add Transformation. This will add transformations for each of the Project Configurations you have. (by default Debug and Release).
It will look like this:
Now you can build deployment packages.
Or install Slowchetah and then when you press F5 to debug it will run the selected project configuration with the configuration transformation applied.
For the last two years I have been using Java and NetBeans, where all I need to do to add a new third party library to my project is throw in the .jar file and NetBeans does the rest.
Recently I have switch to C++ and Visual Studio and I am having a really hard time getting a project to compile using OpenGL, GLUT and GLEW due to 'Missing reference' errors.
Some tutorials tell me I need to download the projects for GLUT/GLEW and run them (that didn't work), some tutorials tell me I need to add a .dll file to my Win32 folder, others say just put the header files in the same directory as your project and some say I need to install these libraries in to Visual Studio itself, not just to my project.
None of these approaches have worked thus far.
All I want is for this one project to use these libraries. This is throwing a major spanner in the works for me at the moment, any help would be appreciated.
Sorry, I don't have an easy answer for you. I've been using OpenGL on Windows for years, and it can be a pain.
MS doesn't even (really) support OpenGL, the headers that come with Windows are the old 1.x ones - and they have no plans on changing that (they want to you use DX).
So, I would start small.
First, get a basically empty Win32 console "Hello World" app running.
Then, just add one component, like Glut.
Then, do the same - keeping it compiling / linking - incrementally add other components.
Wherever they tell you to put headers, libraries, DLLs, etc, it needs to be reflected in your project file. So:
add the location of the header files to "C/C++->Additional Include Directories"
add the .lib files to the "Linker->Input->Additional Dependencies"
(it still won't find them so) add the location of the .lib files to "Linker->General->Additional Library Directories"
With all that in place it should compile and link, but may not run still because it can't find the DLLs (that go along with the .lib files).
The shortest path to getting running might just be to dump the DLLs in the Windows/System32 folder. But in the long run that can be problematic as other apps may overwrite it (or see you as overwriting theirs).
What I do with specific DLLs is just load them explicitly in my application so I know for sure what DLL I'm getting (I don't do much Windows-specific GL, but when I did, I had my own \OpenGL directory with the versions of .h files, libs and DLLs I wanted).
Good Luck!
Oh, LoadLibrary() will load a DLL, etc.
My solution has a library project which needs a special environment to be built (lots of external libraries and tools)... but it is not vital to our application. We'd like to avoid installing these tools when not necessary (most of our developers work on other parts of code).
We have created another project which has the same API, but has an empty implementation and is compilable without those external tools. I'd like to be able to easily switch between those projects and still get all the references in other projects correct.
I don't know VS/MSBuild very well, but willing to learn whatever is necessary. Is it possible? I am looking for ideas... We're using Subversion, and solutions involving some hacks inside VCS are also welcome.
It sounds as if your library project is one that can be separated from your primary solution, taking the tool baggage with it. Doing that, you could build the speciality solution separately, an link the compiled assembly from the main solution.
Create another build-configuration for your project.
So you will have at least 2 build-configurations e.g. Debug_SpecialNeeds and Debug.
For discussion, I'll assume you have a project directory containing your solution file, a "RealLibrary\RealLibrary.csproj" project file (your "real" library, with the dependencies), and a "MockLibrary\MockLibrary.csproj" file (your "mock" library, with the empty implementations).
If I understand correctly, you want to easily "swap" the MockLibrary for the RealLibrary in your solution, and vice-versa.
The easiest/hackiest way to do this, assuming your solution (and dependent projects) are configured to look for the "RealLibrary.csproj" project, is to rename the "RealLibrary" directory (it doesn't matter to what), and rename the "MockLibrary" directory to "RealLibrary" and rename "MockLibrary.csproj" to "RealLibrary.csproj". This will effectively "trick" your solution and dependent projects into loading the "mock library" even though they are referencing the "real library".
A slightly more complex (and perhaps cleaner) solution is to actually modify your "sln" and "csproj" files to reference "MockLibrary.csproj" instead of "RealLibrary.csproj". In the "sln" file, you'll need to change the path to the project in the section near the top:
Microsoft Visual Studio Solution File, Format Version 10.00
# Visual Studio 2008
Project("{FAE04EC0-301F-11D3-BF4B-00C04F79EFBC}") = "RealLibrary", "RealLibrary\RealLibrary.csproj", "{E1714F9A-E1D9-4132-A561-AE2B4919391C}"
EndProject
You need to change that path "RealLibrary\RealLibrary.csproj" to "MockLibrary\MockLibrary.csproj". If you're going for completeness, you can change the name as well (or perhaps just use a generic name like "Library" for the name).
Likewise, in the dependent csproj files, you'll need to find all instances of the "ProjectReference" node where you reference "RealLibrary.csproj" and modify the path. These sections look like this:
<ProjectReference Include="..\RealLibrary\RealLibrary.csproj">
<Project>{FAE04EC0-301F-11D3-BF4B-00C04F79EFBC}</Project>
<Name>RealLibrary</Name>
</ProjectReference>
You could relatively easily write some scripts to perform this swap. However, I think there's a deeper problem here that can be addressed more directly. I'll post that as a separate answer, but I wanted you to have the actual answer you were looking for first.
The deeper problem I see here is that your library "needs a special environment to be built", specifically because it depends on "lots of external libraries and tools". I would suggest that you NOT go down the path of creating the mock library, but instead focus on getting the library to build correctly without a special environment. You can achieve this by including all of those dependencies in source control along with your project, and reference those dependencies via relative paths inside your working copy. In my build environments, I try to avoid static environmental dependencies as much as possible (ideally limiting it just to the .NET framework itself).
To get the dependencies into source control, you can either check them directly into the project itself, or you can check them into a different location and then "reference" them in your project via svn:external definitions. In my environment, I have a separate "bin" repository used just for these kind of third party library dependencies, and then many dependent projects can pull them in via externals.
If you can eliminate your library's build-time environmental dependencies, your build will be much more robust and it will be much easier for developers to work with the project.
I have a C# project which includes one exe and 11 library files. The exe references all the libraries, and lib1 may reference lib2, lib3, lib4, etc.
If I make a change to a class in lib1 and built the solution, I assumed that only lib1 and the exe would need to be changed. However, all dll's and the exe are being built if I want to run the solution.
Is there a way that I can stop the dependencies from being built if they have not been changed?
Is the key this phrase? "However, all dll's and the exe are being built if I want to run the solution"
Visual Studio will always try to build everything when you run a single project, even if that project doesn't depend on everything. This choice can be changed, however. Go to Tools|Options|Projects and Solutions|Build and Run and check the box "Only build startup projects and dependencies on Run". Then when you hit F5, VS will only build your startup project and the DLLs it depends on.
I just "fixed" the same problem with my VS project. Visual Studio did always a rebuild, even if didn't change anything. My Solution: One cs-File had a future timestamp (Year 2015, this was my fault). I opened the file, saved it and my problem was solved!!!
I am not sure if there is a way to avoid dependencies from being built. You can find some info here like setting copylocal to false and putting the dlls in a common directory.
Optimizing Visual Studio solution build - where to put DLL files?
We had a similar problem at work. In post-build events we were manually embedding manifests into the outputs in the bin directory. Visual Studio was copying project references from the obj dir (which weren't modified). The timestamp difference triggered unnecessary rebuilds.
If your post-build events modify project outputs then either modify the outputs in the bin and obj dir OR copy the modified outputs in the bin dir on top of those in the obj dir.
You can uncheck the build option for specified projects in your Solution configuration:
(source: microsoft.com)
You can can create your own solution configurations to build specific project configurations...
(source: microsoft.com)
We actually had this problem on my current project, in our scenario even running unit tests (without any code changes) was causing a recompile. Check your build configuration's "Platform".
If you are using "Any CPU" then for some reason it rebuilds all projects regardless of changes. Try using processor specific builds, i.e. x86 or x64 (use the platform which is specific to the machine architecture of your machine). Worked for us for x86 builds.
(source: episerver.com)
Now, after I say this, some propeller-head is going to come along and contradict me, but there is no way to do what you want to do from Visual Studio. There is a way of doing it outside of VS, but first, I have a question:
Why on earth would you want to do this? Maybe you're trying to save CPU cycles, or save compile time, but if you do what you're suggesting you will suddenly find yourself in a marvelous position to shoot yourself in the foot. If you have a library 1 that depends upon library 2, and only library 2 changes, you may think you're OK to only build the changed library, but one of these days you are going to make a change to library 2 that will break library 1, and without a build of library 2 you will not catch it in the compilation. So in my humble opinion, DON'T DO IT.
The reason this won't work in VS2005 and 2008 is because VS uses MSBuild. MSBuild runs against project files, and it will examine the project's references and build all referenced projects first, if their source has changed, before building the target project. You can test this yourself by running MSBuild from the command line against one project that has not changed but with a referenced project that has changed. Example:
msbuild ClassLibrary4.csproj
where ClassLibrary4 has not changed, but it references ClassLibrary5, which has changed. MSBuild will build lib 5 first, before it builds 4, even though you didn't mention 5.
The only way to get around all these failsafes is to use the compiler directly instead of going through MSBuild. Ugly, ugly, but that's it. You will basically be reduced to re-implementing MSBuild in some form in order to do what you want to do.
It isn't worth it.
Check out the following site for more detailed information on when a project is built as well as the differences between build and rebuild.
I had this problem too, and noticed these warning messages when building on Windows 7 x64, VS2008 SP1:
cl : Command line warning D9038 : /ZI is not supported on this platform; enabling /Zi instead
cl : Command line warning D9007 : '/Gm' requires '/Zi'; option ignored
I changed my project properties to:
C/C++ -> General -> Debug Information Format = /Zi
C/C++ -> Code Generation -> Enable Minimal Build = No
After rebuilding I switched them both back and dependencies work fine again. But prior to that no amount of cleaning, rebuilding, or completely deleting the output directory would fix it.
I don't think there's away for you to do it out of the box in VS. You need this add-in
http://workspacewhiz.com/
It's not free but you can evaluate it before you buy.
Yes, exclude the non-changing bits from the solution. I say this with a caveat, as you can compile in a way where a change in build number for the changed lib can cause the non built pieces to break. This should not be the case, as long as you do not break interface, but it is quite common because most devs do not understand interface in the .NET world. It comes from not having to write IDL. :-)
As for X projcts in a solution, NO, you can't stop them from building, as the system sees a dependency has changed.
BTW, you should look at your project and figure out why your UI project (assume it is UI) references the same library as everything else. A good Dependency Model will show the class(es) that should be broken out as data objects or domain objects (I have made an assumption that the common dependency is some sort of data object or domain object, of course, but that is quite common). If the common dependency is not a domain/data object, then I would rethink my architecture in most cases. In general, you should be able to create a path from UI to data without common dependencies other than non-behavioral objects.
Not sure of an awesome way to handle this, but in the past if I had a project or two that kept getting rebuilt, and assuming I wouldn't be working in them, I would turn the build process off for them.
Right click on the sln, select configuration manager and uncheck the check boxes. Not perfect, but works when Visual Studio isn't behaving.
If you continue to experience this problem, it may be due to a missing or out of date calculated dependency (like a header) that is listed in your project, but does not exist.
This happens to me especially common after migrating to a new version (for example: from 2012 to 2013) because VS may have recalculated dependencies in the conversion, or you are migrating to a new location.
A quick check is to double-click every file in offending project from solution explorer. If you discover a file does not exist, that is your problem.
Failing a simple missing file: You may have a more complicated build date relationship between source and target. You can use a utility to find out what front-end test is triggering the build. To get that information you can enable verbose CPS logging. See: Andrew Arnott - Enable C++ and Javascript project system tracing (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vsproject/archive/2009/07/21/enable-c-project-system-logging.aspx). I use the DebugView option. Invaluable tool when you need it.
(this is a C# specific question, but a different post was merged as identical)