Develop Reference

Accessing public members of my own confused dll

I've asked a question here before, about protecting an application from being stolen and I've got an answer.
I decided to use confuserEX which is free and works fine with WPF. But when I checked the documentation, I noticed that it renames all the strings in the code with other meaningless strings.
My question is that, if any string is replaced with another meaningless string how can I used my own dll to access public members or functions of a class inside it?

Public types and members are generally not obfuscated, so if there is code in your DLL that your app can call into from the outside, chances are that anyone else can call into it. There's not much you can do about that. If you have code that you don't want someone reverse engineering, then have that code run on a server that you control, as #Habib suggests.

Will the compiler only compile code that can get executed?

I have a class library and am using only part of it. Is there a need to delete what isn't being used in order to shrink the size of the created code (in release configuration)?
As far as I've seen, the compiler takes care of that, and removing the code doesn't change the EXE file size. Will this always be true? Removing all unneeded code would take very long, so I want to know if there's need for that.
More information: there are methods and classes in the class library that aren't called from the executing code, but are referenced by other parts of code in the class library (which themselves are never called).

No, the compiler includes the "dead" code as well. A simple reason for this is that it's not always possible to know exactly what code will and won't be executed. For example, even a private method that is never referenced could be called via reflection, and public methods could be referenced by external assemblies.
You can use a tool to help you find and remove unused methods (including ones only called by other unused methods). Try What tools and techniques do you use to find dead code? and Find unused code to get you started.

It all gets compiled. Regardless of whether it is called or not. The code may be called by an external library.
The only way to make the compiler ignore code is by using Compiler Preprocessor Directives. More about those here.

I doubt the compiler will remove anything. The fact is, the compiler can't tell what is used and what is not, as types can be instantiated and methods called by name, thanks to reflection.

Let's suppose there is a class library called Utility. You created a new project and added this class library to that project. Even if your EXE calls only 1-2 methods from the class library, it's never a good idea to delete the unreferenced code.
It would go against the principle of reusablity. Despite the fact that there would be some classes present in the library unreferenced from the EXE, it would not have any bad impact on performance or size of the program.

Determining all and only dead code is (if one makes the idealization that one has a "math world" like language) recursively undecidable, in most languages. (A few rare ones like the Blaise language are decidable.)

to the question of whether there is a "need to delete what isn't being used in order to shrink the size of the created code": i think this would only be useful to save network bandwidth. removing unused code is crucial in web applications to improve loading speeds etc.
if you're code is an exe or a library, the only reason i see to remove dead code, is to improve your code quality. so that someone looking at your code 2 years down the line won't scratch their heads wondering what it does.

Is there an equivalent to Java's ClassFileTransformer in .NET? (a way to replace a class)

I've been searching for this for quite a while with no luck so far. Is there an equivalent to Java's ClassFileTransformer in .NET? Basically, I want to create a class CustomClassFileTransformer (which in Java would implement the interface ClassFileTransformer) that gets called whenever a class is loaded, and is allowed to tweak it and replace it with the tweaked version.
I know there are frameworks that do similar things, but I was looking for something more straightforward, like implementing my own ClassFileTransformer. Is it possible?
EDIT #1. More details about why I need this:
Basically, I have a C# application and I need to monitor the instructions it wants to run in order to detect read or write operations to fields (operations Ldfld and Stfld) and insert some instructions before the read/write takes place.
I know how to do this (except for the part where I need to be invoked to replace the class): for every method whose code I want to monitor, I must:
Get the method's MethodBody using MethodBase.GetMethodBody()
Transform it to byte array with MethodBody.GetILAsByteArray(). The byte[] it returns contains the bytecode.
Analyse the bytecode as explained here, possibly inserting new instructions or deleting/modifying existing ones by changing the contents of the array.
Create a new method and use the new bytecode to create its body, with MethodBuilder.CreateMethodBody(byte[] il, int count), where il is the array with the bytecode.
I put all these tweaked methods in a new class and use the new class to replace the one that was originally going to be loaded.
An alternative to replacing classes would be somehow getting notified whenever a method is invoked. Then I'd replace the call to that method with a call to my own tweaked method, which I would tweak only the first time is invoked and then I'd put it in a dictionary for future uses, to reduce overhead (for future calls I'll just look up the method and invoke it; I won't need to analyse the bytecode again). I'm currently investigating ways to do this and LinFu looks pretty interesting, but if there was something like a ClassFileTransformer it would be much simpler: I just rewrite the class, replace it, and let the code run without monitoring anything.
An additional note: the classes may be sealed. I want to be able to replace any kind of class, I cannot impose restrictions on their attributes.
EDIT #2. Why I need to do this at runtime.
I need to monitor everything that is going on so that I can detect every access to data. This applies to the code of library classes as well. However, I cannot know in advance which classes are going to be used, and even if I knew every possible class that may get loaded it would be a huge performance hit to tweak all of them instead of waiting to see whether they actually get invoked or not.
POSSIBLE (BUT PRETTY HARDCORE) SOLUTION. In case anyone is interested (and I see the question has been faved, so I guess someone is), this is what I'm looking at right now. Basically I'd have to implement the profiling API and I'll register for the events that I'm interested in, in my case whenever a JIT compilation starts. An extract of the blogpost:
In your ICorProfilerCallback2::ModuleLoadFinished callback, you call ICorProfilerInfo2::GetModuleMetadata to get a pointer to a metadata interface on that module.
QI for the metadata interface you want. Search MSDN for "IMetaDataImport", and grope through the table of contents to find topics on the metadata interfaces.
Once you're in metadata-land, you have access to all the types in the module, including their fields and function prototypes. You may need to parse metadata signatures and this signature parser may be of use to you.
In your ICorProfilerCallback2::JITCompilationStarted callback, you may use ICorProfilerInfo2::GetILFunctionBody to inspect the original IL, and ICorProfilerInfo2::GetILFunctionBodyAllocator and then ICorProfilerInfo2::SetILFunctionBody to replace that IL with your own.
The great news: I get notified when a JIT compilation starts and I can replace the bytecode right there, without having to worry about replacing the class, etc. The not-so-great news: you cannot invoke managed code from the API's callback methods, which makes sense but means I'm on my own parsing the IL code, etc, as opposed to be able to use Cecil, which would've been a breeze.
I don't think there's a simpler way to do this without using AOP frameworks (such as PostSharp). If anyone has any other idea please let me know. I'm not marking the question as answered yet.

I don't know of a direct equivalent in .NET for this.
However, there are some ways to implement similar functionality, such as using Reflection.Emit to generate assemblies and types on demand, uing RealProxy to create proxy objects for interfaces and MarshalByRefObject objects. However, to advise what to use, it would be important to know more about the actual use case.

After quite some research I'm answering my own question: there isn't an equivalent to the ClassFileTransformer in .NET, or any straightforward way to replace classes.
It's possible to gain control over the class-loading process by hosting the CLR, but this is pretty low-level, you have to be careful with it, and it's not possible in every scenario. For example if you're running on a server you may not have the rights to host the CLR. Also if you're running an ASP.NET application you cannot do this because ASP.NET already provides a CLR host.
It's a pity .NET doesn't support this; it would be so easy for them to do this, they just have to notify you before a class is loaded and give you the chance to modify the class before passing it on the CLR to load it.

C# developers learning Java, what are the biggest differences one may overlook? [closed]

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
For c# developers that are staring out to learn Java, are there any big underlying differences between the two languages that should be pointed out?
Maybe some people may assume things to be the same, but there are some import aspects that shouldn't be overlooked? (or you can really screw up!)
Maybe in terms of OOP constructs, the way GC works, references, deployment related, etc.

A few gotchas off the top of my head:
Java doesn't have custom value types (structs) so don't bother looking for them
Java enums are very different to the "named numbers" approach of C#; they're more OO. They can be used to great effect, if you're careful.
byte is signed in Java (unfortunately)
In C#, instance variable initializers run before the base class constructor does; in Java they run after it does (i.e. just before the constructor body in "this" class)
In C# methods are sealed by default. In Java they're virtual by default.
The default access modifier in C# is always "the most restrictive access available in the current context"; in Java it's "package" access. (It's worth reading up on the particular access modifiers in Java.)
Nested types in Java and C# work somewhat differently; in particular they have different access restrictions, and unless you declare the nested type to be static it will have an implicit reference to an instance of the containing class.

here is a very comprehensive comparison of the 2 languages:
http://www.25hoursaday.com/CsharpVsJava.html
Added: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Java_and_C_Sharp

I am surprised that no one has mentioned properties, something quite fundamental in C# but absent in Java. C# 3 and above has automatically implemented properties as well. In Java you have to use GetX/SetX type methods.
Another obvious difference is LINQ and lambda expressions in C# 3 absent in Java.
There are a few other simple but useful things missing from Java like verbatim strings (#""), operator overloading, iterators using yield and pre processor are missing in Java as well.
One of my personal favourites in C# is that namespace names don't have to follow the physical directory structure. I really like this flexibility.

There are a lot of differences, but these come to mind for me:
Lack of operator overloading in Java. Watch your instance.Equals(instance2) versus instance == instance2 (especially w/strings).
Get used to interfaces NOT being prefixed with an I. Often you see namespaces or classes suffixed with Impl instead.
Double checked locking doesn't work because of the Java memory model.
You can import static methods without prefixing them with the class name, which is very useful in certain cases (DSLs).
Switch statements in Java don't require a default, and you can't use strings as case labels (IIRC).
Java generics will anger you. Java generics don't exist at runtime (at least in 1.5), they're a compiler trick, which causes problems if you want to do reflection on the generic types.

.NET has reified generics; Java has erased generics.
The difference is this: if you have an ArrayList<String> object, in .NET, you can tell (at runtime) that the object has type ArrayList<String>, whereas in Java, at runtime, the object is of type ArrayList; the String part is lost. If you put in non-String objects into the ArrayList, the system can't enforce that, and you'll only know about it after you try to extract the item out, and the cast fails.

One thing I miss in C# from Java is the forced handling of checked exceptions. In C# is it far to common that one is unaware of the exceptions a method may throw and you're at the mercy of the documentation or testing to discover them. Not so in Java with checked exceptions.

Java has autoboxing for primitives rather than value types, so although System.Int32[] is an array of values in C#, Integer[] is an array of references to Integer objects, and as such not suitable for higher performance calculations.

No delegates or events - you have to use interfaces. Fortunately, you can create classes and interface implementations inline, so this isn't such a big deal

The built-in date/calendar functionality in Java is horrible compared to System.DateTime. There is a lot of info about this here: What's wrong with Java Date & Time API?
Some of these can be gotchas for a C# developer:
The Java Date class is mutable which can make returning and passing dates around dangerous.
Most of the java.util.Date constructors are deprecated. Simply instantiating a date is pretty verbose.
I have never gotten the java.util.Date class to interoperate well with web services. In most cases the dates on either side were wildly transformed into some other date & time.
Additionally, Java doesn't have all the same features that the GAC and strongly-named assemblies bring. Jar Hell is the term for what can go wrong when linking/referencing external libraries.
As far as packaging/deployment is concerned:
it can be difficult to package up web applications in an EAR/WAR format that actually install and run in several different application servers (Glassfish, Websphere, etc).
deploying your Java app as a Windows service takes a lot more effort than in C#. Most of the recommendations I got for this involved a non-free 3rd party library
application configuration isn't nearly as easy as including an app.config file in your project. There is a java.util.Properties class, but it isn't as robust and finding the right spot to drop your .properties file can be confusing

There are no delegates in Java. Therefore, aside from all the benefits that delegates bring to the table, events work differently too. Instead of just hooking up a method, you need to implement an interface and attach that instead.

One thing that jumps out b/c it's on my interview list is that there is no "new" keyword analogue in Java for method hiding and there fore no compiler warning "you should put new here". Accidental method hiding when you meant to override leads to bugs.
(edit for example)
Example, B derives from A (using C# syntax, Java behaves same way last I checked but does not emit compiler warning). Does A's foo get called, or B's foo? (A's gets called, probably surprising the dev who implemented B).
class A
{
public void foo() {code}
}
class B:A
{
public void foo() {code}
}
void SomeMethod()
{
A a = new B(); // variable's type is declared as A, but assigned to an object of B.
a.foo();
}

Java doesn't have LINQ and the documentation is hell. User interfaces in Java are a pain to develop, you lose all the good things Microsoft gave us (WPF, WCF, etc...) but get hard - to - use, hardly documented "APIs".

The most harrasing difference to me when I switch to java it's the string declaration.
in C# string (most of the time)
in Java String
It's pretty simple, but trust me, it makes you lose so much time when you have the habit to s not S !

The one issue I've run into so far when working with Java coming from C# is Exceptions and Errors are different.
For example you cannot catch an out of memory error using catch(Exception e).
See the following for more details:
why-is-java-lang-outofmemoryerror-java-heap-space-not-caught

It's been so long since I've been in Java but the things I noticed right off the bat in application development was C# event model, C# drag and drop vs using Layout Managers in Swing (if your doing App dev), and exception handling with Java making sure you catch an exception and C# not required.

In response to your very direct question in your title:
"C# developers learning Java, what are the biggest differences one may overlook?"
A: The fact that Java is considerably slower on Windows.

Why does StyleCop recommend prefixing method or property calls with "this"?

I have been trying to follow StyleCop's guidelines on a project, to see if the resulting code was better in the end. Most rules are reasonable or a matter of opinion on coding standard, but there is one rule which puzzles me, because I haven't seen anyone else recommend it, and because I don't see a clear benefit to it:
SA1101: The call to {method or property name} must begin with the 'this.' prefix to indicate that the item is a member of the class.
On the downside, the code is clearly more verbose that way, so what are the benefits of following that rule? Does anyone here follow that rule?

I don't really follow this guidance unless I'm in the scenarios you need it:
there is an actual ambiguity - mainly this impacts either constructors (this.name = name;) or things like Equals (return this.id == other.id;)
you want to pass a reference to the current instance
you want to call an extension method on the current instance
Other than that I consider this clutter. So I turn the rule off.

It can make code clearer at a glance. When you use this, it's easier to:
Tell static and instance members apart. (And distinguish instance methods from delegates.)
Distinguish instance members from local variables and parameters (without using a naming convention).

I think this article explains it a little
http://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/sourceanalysis/archive/2008/05/25/a-difference-of-style.aspx
...a brilliant young developer at Microsoft (ok, it was me) decided to take it upon himself to write a little tool which could detect variances from the C# style used within his team. StyleCop was born. Over the next few years, we gathered up all of the C# style guidelines we could find from the various teams within Microsoft, and picked out all of best practices which were common to these styles. These formed the first set of StyleCop rules. One of the earliest rules that came out of this effort was the use of the this prefix to call out class members, and the removal of any underscore prefixes from field names. C# style had officially grown apart from its old C++ tribe.

this.This
this.Does
this.Not
this.Add
this.Clarity
this.Nor
this.Does
this.This
this.Add
this.Maintainability
this.To
this.Code
The usage of "this.", when used excessively or a forced style requirement, is nothing more then a contrivance used under the guise that there is < 1% of developers that really do not understand code or what they are doing, and makes it painful for 99% who want to write easily readable and maintainable code.
As soon as you start typing, Intellisence will list the content available in the scope of where you are typing, "this." is not necessary to expose class members, and unless you are completely clueless to what you are coding for you should be able to easily find the item you need.
Even if you are completely clueless, use "this." to hint what is available, but don't leave it in code. There are also a slew of add-ons like Resharper that help to bring clarity to the scope and expose the contents of objects more efficiently. It is better to learn how to use the tools provided to you then to develop a bad habit that is hated by a large number of your co-workers.
Any developer that does not inherently understand the scope of static, local, class or global content should not rely on "hints" to indicate the scope. "this." is worse then Hungarian notation as at least Hungarian notation provided an idea about the type the variable is referencing and serves some benefit. I would rather see "_" or "m" used to denote class field members then to see "this." everywhere.
I have never had an issue, nor seen an issue with a fellow developer that repeatedly fights with code scope or writes code that is always buggy because of not using "this." explicitly. It is an unwarranted fear that "this." prevents future code bugs and is often the argument used where ignorance is valued.
Coders grow with experience, "this." is like asking someone to put training wheels on their bike as an adult because it is what they first had to use to learn how to ride a bike. And adult might fall off a bike 1 in 1,000 times they get on it, but that is no reason to force them to use training wheels.
"this." should be banned from the language definition for C#, unfortunately there is only one reason for using it, and that is to resolve ambiguity, which could also be easily resolved through better code practices.

A few basic reasons for using this (and I coincidentally always prefix class values with the name of the class of which they are a part as well - even within the class itself).
1) Clarity. You know right this instant which variables you declared in the class definition and which you declared as locals, parameters and whatnot. In two years, you won't know that and you'll go on a wondrous voyage of re-discovery that is absolutely pointless and not required if you specifically state the parent up front. Somebody else working on your code has no idea from the get-go and thus benefits instantly.
2) Intellisense. If you type 'this.' you get all instance-specific members and properties in the help. It makes finding things a lot easier, especially if you're maintaining somebody else's code or code you haven't looked at in a couple of years. It also helps you avoid errors caused by misconceptions of what variables and methods are declared where and how. It can help you discover errors that otherwise wouldn't show up until the compiler choked on your code.
3) Granted you can achieve the same effect by using prefixes and other techniques, but this begs the question of why you would invent a mechanism to handle a problem when there is a mechanism to do so built into the language that is actually supported by the IDE? If you touch-type, even in part, it will ultimately reduce your error rate, too, by not forcing you to take your fingers out of the home position to get to the underscore key.
I see lots of young programmers who make a big deal out of the time they will save by not typing a character or two. Most of your time will be spent debugging, not coding. Don't worry so much about your typing speed. Worry more about how quickly you can understand what is going on in the code. If you save a total of five minutes coding and win up spending an extra ten minutes debugging, you've slowed yourself down, no matter how fast you look like you're going.

Note that the compiler doesn't care whether you prefix references with this or not (unless there's a name collision with a local variable and a field or you want to call an extension method on the current instance.)
It's up to your style. Personally I remove this. from code as I think it decreases the signal to noise ratio.
Just because Microsoft uses this style internally doesn't mean you have to. StyleCop seems to be a MS-internal tool gone public. I'm all for adhering to the Microsoft conventions around public things, such as:
type names are in PascalCase
parameter names are in camelCase
interfaces should be prefixed with the letter I
use singular names for enums, except for when they're [Flags]
...but what happens in the private realms of your code is, well, private. Do whatever your team agrees upon.
Consistency is also important. It reduces cognitive load when reading code, especially if the code style is as you expect it. But even when dealing with a foreign coding style, if it's consistent then it won't take long to become used to it. Use tools like ReSharper and StyleCop to ensure consistency where you think it's important.
Using .NET Reflector suggests that Microsoft isn't that great at adhering to the StyleCop coding standards in the BCL anyway.

I do follow it, because I think it's really convenient to be able to tell apart access to static and instance members at first glance.
And of course I have to use it in my constructors, because I normally give the constructor parameters the same names as the field their values get assigned to. So I need "this" to access the fields.

In addition it is possible to duplicate variable names in a function so using 'this' can make it clearer.
class foo {
private string aString;
public void SetString(string aString){
//this.aString refers to the class field
//aString refers to the method parameter
this.aString = aString;
}
}

I follow it mainly for intellisense reasons. It is so nice typing this. and getting a consise list of properties, methods, etc.