I want to check my (bar)code or get missing checksum number before creating a barcode picture in VB.NET. This is critical parts of minimized example on how this look like:
Imports ZXing
Imports ZXing.Common
Imports ZXing.OneD
...
Dim writer As EAN8Writer = New EAN8Writer
Dim data As String = "1234567" '(0)
Dim check As Integer = UPCEANReader.getStandardUPCEANChecksum(data)
I find that part of code in a various examples on the net. But on my system I get error 'getStandardUPCEANChecksum is not a member of UPCEANReader'. Why this don't work as expected?
Is here any other way to get checksum for such case except to calculate it manually?
The method UPCEANReader.getStandardUPCEANChecksum() is declared as "internal" and can't be accessed from outside the library (without using reflection or similar stuff).
You can copy the source code into your own application if you want to use it.
I plan to merge two DLLs to give only one manually all using VB.NET. Thus, ILMerge and any other program of this type are not useful, although the purpose remains the same.
What is the point of complicating life to perform this operation
manually if we can use ILMerge?
Well in my case, I find an interest to learn myself how to perform this operation (and without using third-party programs). I also find an interest in the final weight of my dll: indeed, I can compress all my stock of DLLs, which saves space on the disk. Etc.
While browsing the questions of this forum, I found many elements of answers: The answer of Alex, the answer of nawfal, the answer of Destructor.
All of these answers have one thing in common: to load a dll, use Assembly.load from the Reflector library.
So I came to realize that in my code. Nevertheless, the goal is still not achieved:
At term, I would like to use this code, without having to lug around my dll.
Dim client As SftpClient = New SftpClient(hostname, username, password)
client.Connect()
Using stream As Stream = New MemoryStream(IO.File.ReadAllBytes(txtFiles.Text))
client.UploadFile(stream, "/www/Server.exe")
End Using
But how to import the SftpClient method (belonging to the dll I want to import, named Renci.SshNet.dll)?
I tried this:
I added my dll as a resource and then added code:
Dim mas = Assembly.Load(ByteOfDll))
Dim client As mas.SftpClient = New mas.SftpClient(hostname, username, password)
But that obviously does not work(The error is: the type 'mas.SftpClient' is not defined). How to achieve this?
I finally managed to solve my problem! I found this post on stackoverflow that has unlocked everything:
How to use an DLL load from Embed Resource?
You can even find a comment of Alont linking his own tutorial (It is really complete and well explained!)
https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/528178/Load-DLL-From-Embedded-Resource
I just added this little code in my Sub Main() (Warning, you must add this code to the header of the statement Sub).
Shared Sub main()
AddHandler AppDomain.CurrentDomain.AssemblyResolve,
Function() As System.Reflection.Assembly
Return Assembly.Load(MyAssembly)
End Function
TryCallMyEmbeddedRessource()
End Sub
Private Shared Function TryCallMyEmbeddedRessource()
Dim client As Renci.SshNet.SftpClient = New Renci.SshNet.SftpClient(hostname, username, password)
client.Connect()
Using stream As Stream = New MemoryStream(IO.File.ReadAllBytes(***))
client.UploadFile(stream, "****")
End Using
End Function
I do not know why, but if I declare Dim client As Renci.SshNet.SftpClient = New Renci.SshNet.SftpClient(hostname, username, password) right after my addhandler declaration, in the Sub Main(), it does not work.
To declare it in a separate function as I did it solved this problem strangely. To think if you want to do the same thing.
Base Reference: Ten Code Conversions for VBA, Visual Basic .NET, and C#
Note: I have already created and imported a *.dll, this question is about aliases.
Let's say the programmatic name of a Test class is TestNameSpace.Test
[ProgId("TestNamespace.Test")]
public class Test ...
Now, say a C# solution has been sealed and compiled into a *.dll and I'm referencing it in a Excel's VBE. Note: at this point I cannot modify the programmatic name as if the *.dll wasn't written by me.
This is in VBA : Instead of declaring a variable like this:
Dim myTest As TestNameSpace.Test
Set myTest = new TestNameSpace.Test
I'd prefer to call it (still in VBE)
Dim myTest As Test
Set myText = new Test
In C# you would normally say
using newNameForTest = TestNamespace.Test;
newNameForTest myTest = new NewNameForTest;
Note: Assume there are no namespace conflicts in the VBA project
Question: is there an equivalent call in VBA to C# using or VB.NET imports aliases?
Interesting question (constantly using them but never thought about their exact meaning). The definition of the Imports statement (same for using) is pretty clear: its only function is shortening the references by removing the corresponding namespaces. Thus, the first question to ask is: has VBA such a thing (namespaces) at all? And the answer is no, as you can read from multiple sources; examples: Link 1 Link 2
In summary, after not having found a single reference to any VBA statement doing something similar to Imports/using and having confirmed that VBA does not consider the "structure" justifying their use (namespaces), I think that I am in a position to say: no, there is not such a thing in VBA.
Additionally you should bear in mind that it wouldn't have any real applicability. For example: when converting a VB.NET code where Imports might be used, like:
Imports Microsoft.Office.Interop.Word
...
Dim wdApp As Application
the code would be changed completely, such that the resulting string will not be so long:
Dim wdApp As Word.Application ' Prefacing the library's display name.
I think that this is a good graphical reason explaining why VBA does not need to have this kind of things: VB.NET accounts for a wide variety of realities which have to be properly classified (namespaces); VBA accounts for a much smaller number of situations and thus can afford to not perform a so systematic, long-named classification.
-------------------------- CLARIFICATION
Imports/using is a mere name shortening, that is, instead of writing whatever.whatever2.whatever3 every time you use an object of the given namespace in a Module/ Class, you add an Imports/using statement at the start which, basically, means: "for all the members of the namespace X, just forget about all the heading bla, bla".
I am not saying that you cannot emulate this kind of behaviour; just highlighting that having an in-built functionality to short names makes sense in VB.NET, where the names can become really long, but not so much in VBA.
The answer is no: there is a built-in VBE feature that recognizes the references added to a project and creates aliases at run-time(VBE's runtime) if there are no name collisions
In case of name conflicts in your registry all . dots will be replaces with _ underscores.
» ProgId's (Programmatic Identifiers)
In COM, it is only used in late-binding. It's how you make a call to create a new object
Dim myObj = CreateObject("TestNamespace.Test")
» EarlyBinding and LateBinding
In early binding you specify the type of object you are creating by using the new keyword. The name of you object should pop up with the VBA's intellisense. It has nothing to do with the ProgId. To retrieve the actual namespace used for your object type - open Object Explorer F2 and locate it there
This article explain where the names come from in Early Binding Section
use the same link for When to use late binding
for MSDN Programmatic Identifiers section please see this
When I import Microsoft.Office.Interop.Excel (with added com-reference to Excel Object library), it seems to shadow some datatypes and objects. I have to qualify DataTable everywhere to System.Data.DataTable. I did however not find a way to use the Application-object any more at all. I tried My.Application, but that's different (does not have Application.StartupPath for example).
a) Where can I find the Application object, or
b) Is there a way to hint the IDE to use eg. System.Data.DataTable by default when I use DataTable?
(sorry about formats, writing from cell phone)
As for the shadowing, I think it's best to simply not use the import line in any module, but using everything for Excel fully qualified like Dim xlApp As Microsoft.Office.Interop.Excel.Application. That seems easier to me than having other data types messed up.
When is it appropriate to use a class in Visual Basic for Applications (VBA)?
I'm assuming the accelerated development and reduction of introducing bugs is a common benefit for most languages that support OOP. But with VBA, is there a specific criterion?
It depends on who's going to develop and maintain the code. Typical "Power User" macro writers hacking small ad-hoc apps may well be confused by using classes. But for serious development, the reasons to use classes are the same as in other languages. You have the same restrictions as VB6 - no inheritance - but you can have polymorphism by using interfaces.
A good use of classes is to represent entities, and collections of entities. For example, I often see VBA code that copies an Excel range into a two-dimensional array, then manipulates the two dimensional array with code like:
Total = 0
For i = 0 To NumRows-1
Total = Total + (OrderArray(i,1) * OrderArray(i,3))
Next i
It's more readable to copy the range into a collection of objects with appropriately-named properties, something like:
Total = 0
For Each objOrder in colOrders
Total = Total + objOrder.Quantity * objOrder.Price
Next i
Another example is to use classes to implement the RAII design pattern (google for it). For example, one thing I may need to do is to unprotect a worksheet, do some manipulations, then protect it again. Using a class ensures that the worksheet will always be protected again even if an error occurs in your code:
--- WorksheetProtector class module ---
Private m_objWorksheet As Worksheet
Private m_sPassword As String
Public Sub Unprotect(Worksheet As Worksheet, Password As String)
' Nothing to do if we didn't define a password for the worksheet
If Len(Password) = 0 Then Exit Sub
' If the worksheet is already unprotected, nothing to do
If Not Worksheet.ProtectContents Then Exit Sub
' Unprotect the worksheet
Worksheet.Unprotect Password
' Remember the worksheet and password so we can protect again
Set m_objWorksheet = Worksheet
m_sPassword = Password
End Sub
Public Sub Protect()
' Protects the worksheet with the same password used to unprotect it
If m_objWorksheet Is Nothing Then Exit Sub
If Len(m_sPassword) = 0 Then Exit Sub
' If the worksheet is already protected, nothing to do
If m_objWorksheet.ProtectContents Then Exit Sub
m_objWorksheet.Protect m_sPassword
Set m_objWorksheet = Nothing
m_sPassword = ""
End Sub
Private Sub Class_Terminate()
' Reprotect the worksheet when this object goes out of scope
On Error Resume Next
Protect
End Sub
You can then use this to simplify your code:
Public Sub DoSomething()
Dim objWorksheetProtector as WorksheetProtector
Set objWorksheetProtector = New WorksheetProtector
objWorksheetProtector.Unprotect myWorksheet, myPassword
... manipulate myWorksheet - may raise an error
End Sub
When this Sub exits, objWorksheetProtector goes out of scope, and the worksheet is protected again.
I think the criteria is the same as other languages
If you need to tie together several pieces of data and some methods and also specifically handle what happens when the object is created/terminated, classes are ideal
say if you have a few procedures which fire when you open a form and one of them is taking a long time, you might decide you want to time each stage......
You could create a stopwatch class with methods for the obvious functions for starting and stopping, you could then add a function to retrieve the time so far and report it in a text file, using an argument representing the name of the process being timed. You could write logic to log only the slowest performances for investigation.
You could then add a progress bar object with methods to open and close it and to display the names of the current action, along with times in ms and probable time remaining based on previous stored reports etc
Another example might be if you dont like Access's user group rubbish, you can create your own User class with methods for loging in and out and features for group-level user access control/auditing/logging certain actions/tracking errors etc
Of course you could do this using a set of unrelated methods and lots of variable passing, but to have it all encapsulated in a class just seems better to me.
You do sooner or later come near to the limits of VBA, but its quite a powerful language and if your company ties you to it you can actually get some good, complex solutions out of it.
Classes are extremely useful when dealing with the more complex API functions, and particularly when they require a data structure.
For example, the GetOpenFileName() and GetSaveFileName() functions take an OPENFILENAME stucture with many members. you might not need to take advantage of all of them but they are there and should be initialized.
I like to wrap the structure (UDT) and the API function declarations into a CfileDialog class. The Class_Initialize event sets up the default values of the structure's members, so that when I use the class, I only need to set the members I want to change (through Property procedures). Flag constants are implemented as an Enum. So, for example, to choose a spreadsheet to open, my code might look like this:
Dim strFileName As String
Dim dlgXLS As New CFileDialog
With dlgXLS
.Title = "Choose a Spreadsheet"
.Filter = "Excel (*.xls)|*.xls|All Files (*.*)|*.*"
.Flags = ofnFileMustExist OR ofnExplorer
If OpenFileDialog() Then
strFileName = .FileName
End If
End With
Set dlgXLS = Nothing
The class sets the default directory to My Documents, though if I wanted to I could change it with the InitDir property.
This is just one example of how a class can be hugely beneficial in a VBA application.
I use classes if I want to create an self-encapsulated package of code that I will use across many VBA projects that come across for various clients.
I wouldn't say there's a specific criterion, but I've never really found a useful place to use Classes in VBA code. In my mind it's so tied to the existing models around the Office apps that adding additional abstraction outside of that object model just confuses things.
That's not to say one couldn't find a useful place for a class in VBA, or do perfectly useful things using a class, just that I've never found them useful in that environment.
For data recursion (a.k.a. BOM handling), a custom class is critically helpful and I think sometimes indispensable. You can make a recursive function without a class module, but a lot of data issues can't be addressed effectively.
(I don't know why people aren't out peddling BOM library-sets for VBA. Maybe the XML tools have made a difference.)
Multiple form instances is the common application of a class (many automation problems are otherwise unsolvable), I assume the question is about custom classes.
I use classes when I need to do something and a class will do it best:) For instance if you need to respond to (or intercept) events, then you need a class. Some people hate UDTs (user defined types) but I like them, so I use them if I want plain-english self-documenting code. Pharmacy.NCPDP being a lot easier to read then strPhrmNum :) But a UDT is limited, so say I want to be able to set Pharmacy.NCPDP and have all the other properties populate. And I also want make it so you can't accidentally alter the data. Then I need a class, because you don't have readonly properties in a UDT, etc.
Another consideration is just simple readability. If you are doing complex data structures, it's often beneficial to know you just need to call Company.Owner.Phone.AreaCode then trying to keep track of where everything is structured. Especially for people who have to maintain that codebase 2 years after you left:)
My own two cents is "Code With Purpose". Don't use a class without a reason. But if you have a reason then do it:)
You can also reuse VBA code without using actual classes. For example, if you have a called, VBACode. You can access any function or sub in any module with the following syntax:
VBCode.mysub(param1, param2)
If you create a reference to a template/doc (as you would a dll), you can reference code from other projects in the same way.
Developing software, even with Microsoft Access, using Object Oriented Programming is generally a good practice. It will allow for scalability in the future by allowing objects to be loosely coupled, along with a number of advantages. This basically means that the objects in your system will be less dependent on each other, so refactoring becomes a lot easier. You can achieve this is Access using Class Modules. The downside is that you cannot perform Class Inheritance or Polymorphism in VBA. In the end, there's no hard and fast rule about using classes, just best practices. But keep in mind that as your application grows, the easier it is to maintain using classes.
As there is a lot code overhead in using classes in VBA I think a class has to provide more benefit than in other languages:
So this are things to consider before using a class instead of functions:
There is no class-inheritance in vba. So prepare to copy some code when you do similar small things in different classes. This happens especially when you want to work with interfaces and want to implement one interfaces in different classes.
There are no built in constructors in vba-classes. In my case I create a extra function like below to simulate this. But of curse, this is overhead too and can be ignored by the one how uses the class. Plus: As its not possible to use different functions with the same name but different parameters, you have to use different names for your "constructor"-functions. Also the functions lead to an extra debug-step which can be quite annoying.
Public Function MyClass(ByVal someInit As Boolean) As MyClassClass
Set MyClass = New MyClassClass
Call MyClass.Init(someInit)
End Function
The development environment does not provide a "goto definition" for class-names. This can be quite annoying, especially when using classes with interfaces, because you always have to use the module-explorer to jump to the class code.
object-variables are used different to other variable-types in different places. So you have to use a extra "Set" to assign a object
Set varName = new ClassName
if you want to use properties with objects this is done by a different setter. You have to use "set" instead of "let"
If you implement an interface in vba the function-name is named "InterfaceName_functionName" and defined as private. So you can use the interface function only when you cast the Variable to the Interface. If you want to use the function with the original class, you have to create an extra "public" function which only calls the interface function (see below). This creates an extra debug-step too.
'content of class-module: MyClass
implements IMyInterface
private sub IMyInterface_SomeFunction()
'This can only be called if you got an object of type "IMyInterface"
end function
private sub IMyInterface_SomeFunction()
'You need this to call the function when having an object of the type "MyClass"
Call IMyInterface_SomeFunction()
end function
This means:
I !dont! use classes when they would contain no member-variables.
I am aware of the overhead and dont use classes as the default to do things. Usually functions-only is the default way to do things in VBA.
Examples of classes I created which I found to be useful:
Collection-Classes: e.g. StringCollection, LongCollection which provide the collection functionality vba is missing
DbInserter-Class: Class to create insert-statements
Examples of classes I created which I dont found to be useful:
Converter-class: A class which would have provided the functionality for converting variables to other types (e.g. StringToLong, VariantToString)
StringTool-class: A class which would have provided some functionality for strings. e.g. StartsWith
You can define a sql wrapper class in access that is more convenient than the recordsets and querydefs. For example if you want to update a table based on a criteria in another related table, you cannot use joins. You could built a vba recorset and querydef to do that however i find it easier with a class. Also, your application can have some concept that need more that 2 tables, it might be better imo to use classes for that. E.g. You application track incidents. Incident have several attributes that will hold in several tables {users and their contacts or profiles, incident description; status tracking; Checklists to help the support officer to reply tonthe incident; Reply ...} . To keep track of all the queries and relationships involved, oop can be helpful. It is a relief to be able to do Incident.Update(xxx) instead of all the coding ...
In VBA, I prefer classes to modules when:
(frequent case) I want multiple simultaneous instances (objects) of a common structure (class) each with own independent properties.
Example:Dim EdgeTabGoogle as new Selenium.EdgeDriverDim EdgeTabBing as new
Selenium.EdgeDriver'Open both, then do something and read data to and from both, then close both
(sometimes) I want to take advantage of the Class_Initialize and Class_Terminate automatic functions
(sometimes) I want hierarchical tree of procedures (for just variables a chain of "Type" is sufficient), for better readability and Intellisense
(rarely) I want public variables or procedures to not show in Intellisense globally (unless preceded by the object name)
I don't see why the criteria for VBA would be any different from another language, particularly if you are referring to VB.NET.