How do you call IFileOpenDialog and IFileSaveDialog from VBA?
According to Microsoft, applications written for Windows 7 and later should use IFileOpenDialog/IFileSaveDialog API calls instead of GetOpenFileName/GetSaveFileName (see Using the Common File Dialog). This is especially important for full Library support.
Short answer: it's probably not worth the effort.
Longer answer: the CFD interfaces don't extend IDispatch, which makes them impossible to call via late binding from VBA. That doesn't mean they can't be called from VBA, but it means they require a typelib to describe the "shape" of the IUnknown-based CFD interfaces. Unfortunately, Microsoft doesn't provide the CFD interface definitions in a typelib. You can roll your own typelib by reverse-engineering the header files (or try to find the original IDL in the SDK), but you'd then have to register that typelib on every machine you want to use it on (the tools for which are not shipped on the machine, unlike regsvr32 for COM stuff). Assuming you did all that, you could then reference the typelib from VBA, and conditionally call it on Vista or higher OSes. You could also shim through to a small .NET assembly that would create a System.Windows.Forms.FileDialog-derived type and marshal the results back to VBA- that would be much easier, but still more-or-less require that you register the assembly on every machine (or use C++/CLI or other hacks to export a managed DLL function), and it requires you to take a .NET dependency.
They sure didn't make it easy... :) Good luck!
Related
I am not sure if StringCbPrintf and the include file strsafe.h where it is defined belong the the WinAPI. On one hand, Microsoft documents the function on its WinAPI sites and strsafe.h is under the Windows SDK directory structure which indicates (to me, at least) that it is indeed part of the WinAPI. On the other hand, strsafe.h includes stdio.h etc. which belong to the CRT. I was always under the impression that the WinAPI is completely independent from the CRT (but not vice versa). Possibly, my assumption about the relationship between WinAPI and CRT is wrong. Thus my question: is StringCbPrintf part of the WinAPI?
The StrSafe API is a bit strange because it does not have its own .DLL nor its own exported functions. I assume it was developed this way because it needed to support older versions of Windows that had already been released. It was created during the WinXP service pack security push:
During February and March 2002, all application development in
Microsoft stopped and developers took part in the Security Push
initiative. The goal was to check all code for possible security
vulnerabilities and fix those problems. One of the outcomes of the
Security Push was a library of safe string functions called
"strsafe.lib" with an associated header called "strsafe.h." This
library is available through the Platform SDK that can be downloaded
from the MSDN web site and is automatically installed as part of
Visual C++.NET 2003.
As far as I can tell, a copy of strsafe.h was also included with Writing Secure Code (Second Edition) by Michael Howard and David LeBlanc but I'm not sure if they are the original authors (David LeBlanc is the author of SafeInt):
You can find a copy of Strsafe.h in the companion content in the
folder Secureco2\Strsafe.
msvcrt.dll is basically a system file these days, only Windows 95 shipped without it. You are not supposed to use it as your C run-time but SDK code from Microsoft can probably use it without issues.
msvcrt.dll is now a "known DLL," meaning that it is a system
component owned and built by Windows. It is intended for future
use only by system-level components.
If you want to use msvcrt.dll as your C run-time as well then you must use the WDK for <= Windows 7 but when using the inline version of StrSafe.h, as long as you link to a .lib that contains the required vsnprintf type functions it should not really matter which CRT it comes from. There is also a StrSafe.lib file but Microsoft recommends that you use the inline version.
You are correct that the Windows API is supposed to be independent of the CRT but StrSafe also supports stdin functions like StringCbGetsA and they did not choose to separate those into a separate header for whatever reason. That combined with the need for a existing vsnprintf type function to do the actual work means that StrSafe is somewhat attached to the CRT even though it is meant to be used by all WinAPI developers.
There is probably no true answer to whether it is part of the WinAPI or not since it is a bit subjective. Since it is included with the SDK in the include folder one would assume that Microsoft believes it is a SDK/API component and not a CRT component.
If it's not implemented in Windows and exported from one of its DLLs (as e.g. CreateFile() or CloseHandle() from kernel32.dll), I'd say it's not part of the WinAPI, even if it ends up calling things that are implemented in Windows.
I understand how COM can achieve compiler agnostic C++ code, since it defines an ABI by being careful what features of the C++ language to use. It's just C++ code talking to C++ code in a really clever way. However I still don't understand how it can allow for language interop with C# or Javascript for example.
Where is the boundary? The only explanation I have right now is that the language compiler itself must have special support for COM so that it can generate the proper assembly code to allow for accurate communication between caller/callees.
Since you've tagged your question with WinRT, I assume you're asking specifically about how this is achieved by WinRT language projections. In that case, all languages must have some way to map their natural language constructs to the COM ABI that WinRT defines. That ABI is derived from metadata encoded in the ECMA 335 standard and special rules are applied to transform the abstract metadata into a concrete ABI. There are naturally different ways to achieve this. The CLR itself was updated to support WinRT in C#. The Visual C++ compiler was (sadly) updated with language extensions to support WinRT via C++/CX. The C++/WinRT approach is very different in that it requires only a standard C++ compiler and all of the knowledge about WinRT is delivered via a standard C++ header-only library. Other languages might take different approaches, but at the end of the day they must agree on the way that types expressed in metadata are transformed into objects and virtual function calls on the ABI based on COM.
And while this process is not well documented at the moment, C++/WinRT is one of the only open source language projections and thus acts as a useful reference implementation for those who need to understand how WinRT works under the hood.
https://github.com/microsoft/cppwinrt
The "Type Library" is what enables interop of COM components between different languages.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/midl/com-dcom-and-type-libraries
A type library (.tlb) is a binary file that stores information about a
COM or DCOM object's properties and methods in a form that is
accessible to other applications at runtime. Using a type library, an
application or browser can determine which interfaces an object
supports, and invoke an object's interface methods. This can occur
even if the object and client applications were written in different
programming languages. The COM/DCOM run-time environment can also use
a type library to provide automatic cross-apartment, cross-process,
and cross-machine marshaling for interfaces described in type
libraries.
The other approach for language interop (e.g. C++ projecting objects to Javascript) is that a COM object can implement IDispatch.
It’s not magic, of course.
COM sets up rules for language interop. It’s just a contract, with some helpful tooling. Each language that wants to support COM has to find a way to abide by the rules on its own. They all have to provide their own compatible mechanism one way or another.
In the case of C++, the rules appear to come for free as you mentioned, but be aware there is one caveat: the language standard does not specify the layout and mechanism of classes and virtual functions. The method mimicked by COM is one extremely common implementation of virtual calling (“the VTable”), and COM follows the exact layout used by the Microsoft compiler. But you can have a perfectly valid C++ compiler where classes with virtual functions would not be compatible with the COM layout. It’s just that nobody does that, at least not in Windows compilers. So even in C++ there is some “meeting in the middle” by the compiler.
In C, you have to do the whole thing by hand. Other languages might allow you to do the same thing (assembler of course).
To help compiled languages exchange information about specific contracts, COM provides Type Libraries and mechanisms to read them. A compiler or language that want to take advantage of them also has to “meet in the middle” and learn how to process them (for example, the Microsoft C++ #import directive; the VB6 Libraries menu).
No every language will support everything you can do in COM, because there is a point (in more obscure features) where the return on investment in implementing support in the language doesn’t pan out. Each language has to pick its own limitations. There is plenty of stuff that you can do in COM (read the IDL specs) that VB6 cannot do.
Because following COM rules in a script-like language is between inpractical and impossible, COM offers a higher-level approach (Automation) that is more amenable to dynamic languages, even if more limited. But a language implementer that wants to provide client support for Automation has to implement an understanding of the IDispatch interface, an activation mechanism, and a translation to its language’s proper facilities. And a scripting language wanting to provide support for creating COM servers has to work even harder to implement a valid COM IDispatch implementation and a standalone host engine on behalf of the user scripts. Even VBScript couldn’t do this at the beginning, until Microsoft added .SCR support with the Windows Scripting Host. “Meeting in the middle” again.
If a language wants to support both pure COM and Automation, they need to work double hard; support for one does not automatically give you support for the other.
For .NET languages like C#, most of the work is done for both native COM and Automation inside of the .NET Runtime, which provides the implementation of the COM Callable Wrappers (CCW) and Runtime Callable Wrappers (RCW) necessary to interact with COM, and handling the conflicts between the Reference Count approach of COM and the GC approach of .NET. Microsoft did all the work in one place so individual .NET language designers didn’t have to.
So, yes, the language implementer has to work extra to give the language special support for COM: following the binary layout rules, implementing a translation layer when needed, and/or possibly providing tooling to read Type Libraries.
Language Interop requires both sides (the caller and the callee) to “meet in the middle” somewhere. COM is just a specification that gives designers that middle ground, “a place where all can meet”.
I have to deal with one ancient software module which only support its API being called from VC++6.0.
If I add an indirection layer, that is, wrapping the module in a dynamic library written with VC++6.0 and transferring API to the underlying module. The dll will be called from a VC++ tool chain provided in Visual Studio 2015.
My question is:
Is this doable in principle?
Are there any pitfalls one might want to may attention?
Can it be done in a better way?
Update: I guess that the C ABI is stable through different windows versions as well as corresponding supported VS version. If the dll is made with pure C, this might be done without too much trouble.
There are at least two issues preventing portability between versions/vendors: C++ object/class layout and the C/C++ memory allocators.
To avoid the first issue you should design the visible API as a set of C functions (like most of the Win32 API).
The memory issue can be solved by switching from new/malloc to one of the native Windows functions like LocalAlloc, HeapAlloc or CoTaskMemAlloc. Assuming your old .dll is not statically linked it would theoretically be possible to force newer code to use the malloc in msvcrt.dll but it makes your build setup a bit fragile and it goes against current best practices.
Another alternative is for the middleman .dll to implement everything as a COM object:
EXTERN_C HRESULT WINAPI CreateMyObject(IMyObject**ppv) ...
I have some C++/CLI code which derives from the .NET System Namespace classes.
Is there a way to reuse this code for Universal Windows Platform Apps?
I can't get a reference to the System Namespace in C++, though in C# it is possible. It looks like there is only support for C++/Cx code and not for managed C++/CLI.
The syntax and keywords of the C++/CX extension resembles C++/CLI a great deal. But that's where similarity ends, they have nothing whatsoever in common. C++/CX gets compiled directly to native code, just like native C++. But C++/CLI is compiled to MSIL, the intermediate language of .NET. Their syntax looks so similar because they both solve the same problem, interfacing C++ to a foreign type system. .NET's in the case of C++/CLI, WinRT in the case of C++/CX.
Which is the basic reason why you cannot use the System namespace, it is a .NET namespace. You instead use the std namespace, along with the Platform and Windows namespaces for WinRT specific types. The compiler cannot import .NET reference assemblies with the /ZW compile option in effect, only WinRT metadata files, the ones with the .winmd filename extension. Which are an extension to the COM .tlb type library file format, the ones you previously had to import with the #import directive.
Which in itself is another major source for confusion, the internal .winmd file format was based on the format of .NET metadata. Most .NET decompilers can show you the content of a .winmd file because of this. But again just a superficial similarity, it is completely unrelated to a .NET assembly. It can just contain declarations, not code. Best to compare it to a .h file you'd use in a native C++ project. Or a .tlb file if you previously had exposure to COM.
Knowing how COM works can be very helpful to grok what this is all about. It is in fact COM that lies at the core of WinRT, the basic reason why your C++/CX project can be easily used by a program written in a completely different language like Javascript or VB.NET. A WinRT app is actually an out-of-process COM server. A class library or WinRT component is actually an in-process COM server. COM object factories work differently, the scope is limited to the files named in the package manifest. C++/CX is part of the language projection that hides COM, along with the C++ libraries you link that implement the Platform namespaces. WinRT would be still-born if programmers had to write traditional COM client code. You still can in native C++, the WRL library does little to hide the plumbing.
WinRT readily supports code written in a managed language like C# or VB.NET, the language projection is built into the framework and highly invisible. But not C++/CLI, a structural limitation. A Store/Phone/Universal app targets a subset of the .NET Framework named .NETCore. Better known these days as CoreCLR, the parts that were open-sourced. Which does not support module initializers, critical to C++/CLI.
Enough introduction and getting to the answer: no, you have no use for your C++/CLI code and you'll have to rewrite it. You'll have a decent shot at porting the native C++ code that your C++/CLI wrapper interfaced with, as long as it observes the api limitations. You should always start there first, given that it is easy to do and instantly tells you if your native C++ code is using verboten api functions, the kind that drains a battery too quickly or violates the sandbox restrictions.
The ref class wrappers however have to be significantly tweaked. Little reason to assume that will be a major obstacle, it could still structurally be similar. Biggest limitations are the lack of support for implementation inheritance, a COM restriction, and having to replace the code that used .NET Framework types with equivalent C++ code. The typical hangup is that there tends to be a lot of it, the original author would normally have favored the very convenient .NET types over the standard C++ library types. YMMV.
Most applications created with Microsoft developer tools need some kind of runtime to be installed first.
However most viruses never need any kind of runtime to work. Also they also seem to use undocumented core/kernel APIs without have lib files etc.
So what runtime/application do most virus /virus writers use ?
If the runtime is statically linked in (as opposed to dynamically), then an EXE will be self-contained and you won't need a runtime DLL. However, really, you don't even need a runtime library at all if your code can do everything without calling standard library functions.
As for Windows APIs, in many cases you don't strictly need an import library either -- particularly if you load addresses dynamically via GetProcAddress. Some development tools will even let you link directly against the DLLs (and will generate method stubs or whatever for you). MS tries to ensure that names for documented API calls stay the same between versions. Undocumented functions, not so much...but then, compatibility typically isn't the foremost of concerns anyway when you're deliberately writing malicious software.