I'm kinda new to C# programming, and I'd like your help on something.
A quick review of what I have to do first.
I have to create : - A DLL that produces several .h5 files (HDF5 format) and one xml file
- A WPF viewer for the graphs that are written in these HDF5 files.
The problem is mainly that they are going to be used in a software called Panorama E², which basically manages DLLs, in a very restrictive way. For instance, it does not allow .NET framework 4 (Which makes me use the 3.5 version of the framework).
More info on Panorama : http://uk.codra.net/panorama/panorama-e2-information-system
I'm using HDF5DotNet.dll, that I compiled in x64 for .NET 3.5, and DynamicDataDisplay for my WPF application.
All my DLLs are going to be used by another computer, where Panorama is installed, and where Visual Studio isn't (only the 3.5 .NET framework and some required tools are).
What's the problem ?
Well, first, my WPF application isn't really one, Panorama doesn't seem to support WPF, only Windows Forms, and only as DLLs. Which means I created a WPF UserControl, that I embed in a Windows Form DLL.
I basically have 2 DLLs, one which is the WPF control, and one that uses this control in a winform. This is the last one that I have to integrate in Panorama. On my computer, the one I'm coding with, Panorama recognizes correctly the DLL and there's no problem.
But when I try to give these DLLs to my colleague, with his Panorama without Visual Studio installed, it doesn't work. After some tests, I noticed that it only works if the project (the DLLs) have been compiled on the same computer.
The same problem goes for the other DLL, the one that creates files. As I said, it uses HDF5DotNet.dll, but it seems it doesn't create it correctly. I guess it's the same problem, the DLL is not recognized.
What I tried.
I thought that maybe the DLLs weren't exported correctly. Maybe the referenced DLLs or assemblies aren't given, which are when you compile on the same computer. They're COM DLLs, because they're used in Panorama, and I can't manage to export them correctly.
I tried creating setup projects, so that they would be installed with their dependencies, but I couldn't find a way. Only the DLLs are installed. I tried looking at my DLLs with DependancyWalker, and there are some where dependancies are missing. Even if I try adding them manually, nothing changes.
I also know that regsvr32 doesn't work with .NET DLLs, because there is no entry point. That's why i thought about GAC, but I can't manage to register them (with strong name and everything), because I can't generate them directly.
So yeah, sorry for the long post, I tried to explain my train of thoughts and what I actually tried to do, but I can't find a way to give my projects to my colleague so that he can use them on his computer.
"Self Registration" ( be it RegSvr32, RegAsm or other ) is not a Windows Installer Best Practice. This injects out of process dependencies into the installation critical path that the installer is not aware of, that can fail and can't be rolled back or uninstalled.
The better approach is to use RegAsm /regfile to harvest the COM metadata for the ComVisible assembly and then author those registry values into your MSI's Registry table. This way Windows Installer merely has to copy the DLL and apply the registry values to register your component. It's far less likely to break and can be uninstalled and repaired cleanly.
How you do this exactly depends on the tool you are using to author your MSI. In WiX you'd use Heat to harvest this information. In InstallShield you'd set the .NET ComVisible attribute to True.
The end result is the same.
Hi try the following in command prompt instead of regsvr32 try the following :
"RegAsm.exe acxMaterialClassificationMerge.dll /codebase " where acxMaterialClassificationMerge.dll is your dll. You should do this on every pc thats going to use the dll. RegAsm is located in C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727
1: install first dotnet framework version 2 or newer on the computer
2: in command prompt :"RegAsm.exe acxMaterialClassificationMerge.dll /codebase " where acxMaterialClassificationMerge.dll is your dll. You should do this on every pc thats going to use the dll. RegAsm is located in C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727.
Related
I have made a C# class library, which uses other dll's made by others in the company, for COM interop. It is being used with MS Excel 2013 and works fine on my development machine.
To test it on other machines, i have copied the output (dll's and .tlb file) to my system 32 folder. I have then registered the dll's using regasm (using the /codebase argument). Finally, i added the reference to the .tlb in the Excel VBA editor. Allthough it is a little tedious with 6 dll's, the regasm works fine.
The next step is to distribute the Excel sheet to relevant users in the company, where most are located in different parts of the world in different deparments. This means i do not know what programs that are installed that are needed(for example .net 4.5). Also, since most people in the company know little about the command line, using the above procedure is not only a little tedious, but scares people. I therefore would like to make an installer.
Since i use VS2013, i have installed a plug in that allows me to make a setup file.
I have found this question, which is almost the same as mine, but i don't need the GAC part. How do i modify the procedure to my needs? - i have tried to follow the procedure given, but i get an error stating one of the dll's i use in my own, does not have a strong name and cannot be in the GAC. Build therefore fails. How do i rectify the above? - do i need to fix the dll or can i do this without the GAC-part?
How do i automate the installation process of my dll(s)? - The alternative right now is to roll out VS2013 to the users and make them run the project and register that way (Does VS express suffice?).
Thanks in advance - i started this project with little experience, so learning curve is a bit steep.
It's not clear to me exactly what you want to do, but that link does tell you how to register Dlls - just look at the properties of each Dll and set the register property. You can also add your tlb file to your setup, and mark that to be registered too. If that isn't what you're trying to do then edit the question.
p.s. Don't put tham in the system folder - pout them in your company's/app's common files folder.
I'm coding a simple application that I need to be portable (the user can just run it by clicking on the .exe without having to run a installer).
All the other questions on this subject that I found on StackOverflow wants to make .NET Framework "bundable" with the software, but I don't need that.
A workaround that I found is going to /bin/Debug on the project folder and use the .exe there, but that seems "wrong". Is there another way to make a software written in C# portable?
Thanks!
EDIT: Okay, I'm really dumb and I asked all the wrong questions. However, your answers pointed me to the right direction. I wanted to know how to generate the .exe to send to my friends. What I had to do is change this to "Release" and press F6. I added this so if someone with the same "doubts" that I had can find the answer easly. Thanks!
Going to bin/Debug and using the DLL there is wrong.
Instead, build and copy the one from bin/Release.
If there's anything else inside the folder, though (except *.pdb), then beware. Your application might need those additional files. For example, the app.config.
All .NET applications are "portable" as long as the machine you are running it on has the version of .NET you are targeting (or a compatible version). The key here is to make sure that your application does not depend on things that an installer would take care of for you to make your application work. Examples include: registered DLLs (like Interop assemblies), registry keys, or components that must be found in certain locations (such as having something stored in user's AppData folder).
As long as the machine you want to run it on has .NET framework, you can make any .NET application portable. If the app you're making has no dependencies other than .NET then it's fully portable already. Even if it does have dependencies just include those with the executable.
To expand on Zerkms's comment:
Every software is portable by default. Installers are a way of telling to program to search for resources in a certain place, meaning that if the place isn't there, eg: C:\Windows then the program won't be able to run.
So as long as you have the application have the resources already within the exe or a root folder search (so where the program is, rather then where it should be) then you'll be fine.
If you're using default controls, it should be fine as long as your software's running framework version is installed on the computer. If you're using 3rd party controls, you can emded the dll's into the .exe upon compiling. Do note that the more dll's you embed, the bigger the .exe file will be.
I haven't worked much with COM, so please forgive my ignorance.
Background: I am working on a project in VS 2010. There is a C# COM DLL integrated into the C# solution, and a Setup/Deployment project as well - the Setup project is set to register the COM .tlb file upon installation.
The problem: A previous version of the C# application, along with it's COM DLL, was present on a PC when someone decided to install the newest version of the C# application, and therefore the newest COM DLL. When this happened, it broke the COM functionality for both versions of the C# application..or that is what I am assuming has happened.
Is this typical COM/DLL-Hell behavior? When both C# applications are uninstalled, and then only ONE is re-installed, everything is back to normal - both apparently can't be installed at the same time.
I have tried changed the GUID for the COM DLL project, changing the AssemblyVersion and AssemblyFileVersion for the COM DLL project - all with mixed results. When I change those items, the new install of the application works (great), but now the old C# application doesn't have working functionality.
Note: there are no errors or exceptions thrown when the COM functionality is failing - the COM calls just seem to do nothing. So it is "silently" failing.
I have been researching this and trying various modifications to no real success...maybe I'm thinking about this the wrong way. Is there anyone else with more experience on this that could give me some insight?
You could use a merge module to install the com object and its successive versions. This would allow you to have multiple versions on the same machine. From Microsoft:
A merge module is like a snapshot of a particular version of a component. A new merge module should be created for each successive version of a component in order to avoid version conflicts.
Check out this link: Installer vs. Merge Module Recommendations
I develop application in C# with MSVC 2010 Express, with Forms/WPF/etc.
Application consist of some private assemblies (maybe DLLs) and .exe file. It uses .NET 4 features.
How I deploy this application to other computers? Of course if they have .NET 4 I just can send zip of .exe with .dlls and it work. But if they don't have .NET at all (on Win XP machine)? Or maybe they have lower version of .NET? Should I point them to install .NET from internet or package it with my app or what?
Thanks
There is click-once deploy from microsoft. It automates most of the tasks, including making sure you have the right .Net version and updating the app if a new version of your app is available.
You should create a installer package. If you are using the express versions of visual studio, you can use some free tools for this like WiX or Inno Setup. WiX is perhaps a difficult option to start with, but has a lot of flexibility. There are tutorials and example projects to modify to adapt them to your needs.
http://www.tramontana.co.hu/wix/
This tools create installers that can check if a certain version of the .NET framework is installed on the user computer, among other conditions. You can also include the .NET redistributable in your package, or point the user to download and install it.
We try to keep deployment as simple as possible, and one of the things we do is to ensure our application is just a single executable, no support files needed.
We several steps to get there:
Make sure all dependent resource files are stored in embedded resources where possible, and not on disk
Use ILmerge to link all assemblies into a single executable
Optional - obfuscate the assembly
Optional - If some parts cannot be ILMerged or obfuscated, forcing us to have multiple files, we use Xenocode's PostBuild to link all files into a single executable. Xenocode offers a virtual filesystem to do this. This also allows framework embedding so your app will run on a clean Windows install - no dependencies need to be installed :-)
Wrap the single executable into an msi installer using WiX
Wrap the single executable into click once deployment. For this we also use a little stub launcher executable which starts the main application, allowing us to reuse the same main application executable
Create a zip file of just the single file executable for manual installation.
We the following on our downloads site:
the MSI installer - we prefer people to use this one
A zip file with the Xenocoded (single file) executable
A zip file with the Xenocoded (single file) executable including the .NET Framework
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/324733
Yes, you should point them to install .NET. Otherwise it won't be possible for them to run your application.
You didn't say what type of clients they are (are you making a small app for your friends to use or are they paying customers), but whatever the case may be, I'm always completely against sending a zip file with an instruction document describing what to do with it and what folder to extract it to. As Remy said, ClickOnce is not a bad idea, but I've found it to be a bit of a pain to set up (once you get it set up, though, it works just fine). On the other hand, a Deployment project is simpler and if I were you, that would be the first thing I'd explore.
Use xenocode here
http://spoon.net/Studio/
No need to install anything.
It converts your exe to Native code indirectly and you can run anywhere on windows system.
It also has some option of adding framework inside and the total exe size will be somewhere arround 10MB + Your application exe size..
Thanks
yes! you have to give some general instruction about prerequisites to run your software and in that you can mention the Framework version 3.5 or 4.0 and other utilities you require.
please refer this document for Choosing a Deployment Strategy in Visual studio 2010 may this can help you
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/e2444w33.aspx
when you package you application,you shoud include the .NET Framework
Check out Inno : http://www.jrsoftware.org/isinfo.php
It's free and pretty simple.
OTOH I've seen QTTabBar using it in its' codebase and it was literally one single text file (setup.iss). Let me see if I can find URL to their SourceForge page so you can see the source and the build ... There is it http://qttabbar.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/qttabbar/trunk/Install/ If you grab the source tree you can probably re-fit it for your app in a day.
Is it possible to deploy a .NET 2.0 application as a portable executable?
So that my program can be ran in a Flash Disk without the .NET Framework 2.0 installed in the target machine. Or maybe is it possible to distribute my program with the required .NET DLLs, so that no framework installation is necessary?
I know that there are some alternative tools to turn my .NET exe into a single native executable like RemoteSoft Salamander, Xenocode Postbuild, and Thinstall, but unfortunately I can't afford one.
I also tried to embed the dependencies with Mono's mkbundle, but it messed my program up =\ (no XP visual style, broke some controls and its functionality)
Any kind of help would be appreciated :)
Thanks.
fyi: my IDE is Microsoft Visual C# 2008 Express Edition with .NET Framework 2.0 as the target framework.
Well, other than things like Salamander and Thinstall (now VMWare ThinApp) you would have to have .NET installed if you really want to run .NET.
It may be possible to run Mono without actually installing it (not statically linking your program, but including Mono on the flash drive). I suspect it would be tricky though, as you'd have to tell the runtime about things like the GAC location.
I can't see anything in the Mono FAQ about this, but you might want to ping a Mono mailing list - it sounds like a potentially interesting and useful thing to be able to do.
No; you need either the framework installed, or the tools like you have mentioned.
You could potentially look at mono's new static linker, but that is about it...
I have not tried this myself but here's the procedure:
Make a C# project.
In Solution Explorer, inside your project, there is a line "Reference". Click the plus near it. Now you can see all the dependencies of your project. Delete all references that aren't used (delete, and try to run/build. If it is possible to do it, that it is unused. If there is an error, return it by adding it (right mouse click, "Add Reference")).
For each reference, go to Properties, and in the property "Copy Local" choose "True". For each Image, Icon... make like to the referenced.
Rebuild you project. Now in your Build/Release folder (inside bin) you will see many dll files. Those files have the information of every resource.
Copy all the files in the folder (from step number 4) into a new folder.
Go to the folder: "\Microsoft.Net\Framework\" and copy the file "mscrolib.dll" to the new folder from step 5. If you don't find this file, you can always make a search in the Hard Drive which contains Windows folder.
Now your app is portable (with the whole folder content).
-- Source: http://www.codeproject.com/Tips/392308/Csharp-Portable-Exe-File
Well Thinstall is very expensive and it doesn't work in all situations. If you want to run your app without .Net installed you might run into trouble although there are tools that do that Xenocode has a tool that can do this for you and it's cheaper than thinstall.
But if you ask my opinion it's a bad idea to use them. Better convince your target market to install .Net 2 (Which is pretty much universal these days), and then pack all of your library files into one file using a cheaper Obfuscator like tool (There's a good one from Smartassembly.)
I've used Thinstall for a long time, and I've worked on this technology a lot, so I am not shooting off without experience.