This question follows the previous one below:
Easy way to guarantee binary compatibility for C++ library, C linkage?
I wondered if making interface functions of C++ DLL or shared library with C linkage brings forward compatibility of Compiler and of standard library.
extern "C" someAPI();
The most voted answer was saying that I am wrong. The answer recommended making it open-source. And never mentioned about COM or CORBA. Making it open-source is not always possible.
But recently I am reading books about Windows COM. And I think COM maybe brings the compatibility I wanted. And there is another thing CORBA.
So I wonder if these things, COM and CORBA, really brings forward compatibity of compiler and standard library?
I think network library ACE uses CORBA. And that is only one I know about CORBA.
Isn't CORBA popular nowadays?
What about COM? ActiveX is maybe disappearing but WDF(Windows Driver Foundation) depends on COM.
Thank you very much!
Yes, COM was created, among other reasons, to overcome source code (and .obj, static lib, etc.) reuse issues, whether that source is C/C++ or anything else.
The essence of COM (v-table layout + IUnknown, forget about registration, OLE, Automation, marshaling, and other additional stuff) is very simple (in fact, it's hard to make it more simple). Since it only relies on binary contracts, you can write COM client and/or server code using any language (and any platform, but in reality, only Windows uses it). So you can have a 32-bit COM client written in python talk to a 64-bit COM server written in C++ for example (well, this example in fact requires some cross process marshaling, so it's not pure lightweight COM).
COM is very far from being dead or disappearing (because it's, again, quite simple). "ActiveX" was a marketing / tech mix name, but it's basically COM, and is massively used in Windows, by Windows and 3rd parties.
COM over the physical network (DCOM) is indeed disappearing (in favor of other technologies, like Web, sockets, HTTP, REST, or in general technologies more simple than COM), and what's still used today is basically in-process and out-process COM (out-process is somehow DCOM on the same machine).
I know that CORBA was once upon a time a strong COM competitor (especially because it was available on multiple platforms, including Windows), but it seems to be seriously declining, also in favor of the same more simple technologies (web, etc.).
Related
I've been given the task of trying to recreate a DLL that has slight modifications to the original DLL, which will be executed if another program runs. Basically a mocked up version of the DLL for testing/simulating other parts of a larger system.
I've searching to see if there is any method to check if the library is COM or DCOM but have not found any. I am aware of the differences, but given a DLL library, how can I tell if it is a COM or DCOM library?
Additionally, is there any way to swap out a COM/DCOM library with a newer technology but not change parts of the code that call the COM/DCOM library?
Having the executable code alone you cannot tell which it is except that if there're proxy/stub dll shipped with it you can assume it is DCOM.
The visible differences are in how the thing is registered. Digging into registration process can be easy or not so easy depending on how registration is implemented. If registration parameters are hand-glued inside code you'd have to reverse-engineer it the harder way. If registration uses a .rgs file which is stored in resources you can just extract it and see how registration is done. Anyway your best bet is to use a VM and export its registry, then register the component, export the registry again and see the difference - what was added.
Wow, you are going old school here!
If I remember correctly any valid COM object is can also participate in DCOM. Isn't the wiring for the remote procedure calls done at the operating system level?
From https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa295360(v=vs.60).aspx:
Once COM was adapted to work across a network, then any interface that
was not tied to a local execution model (some interfaces have inherent
reliance on local machine facilities, such as those drawing interfaces
whose methods have handles to device contexts as parameters) would
have the capability of being distributed: An interface consumer would
make a request for a given interface; that interface may be provided
by an instance of an object running (or to be run) on a different
machine. The distribution mechanism inside COM would connect the
consumer to the provider in such a way that method calls made by the
consumer would appear at the provider end, where they would be
executed. Any return values would then be sent back to the consumer.
To all intents and purposes, the act of distribution is transparent to
both the consumer and the provider.
Such a variety of COM does now exist. DCOM (for ‘distributed COM’), is
shipped with versions of Windows NT beginning with version 4.0. Since
late 1996, it has also been available for Windows 95 and its
derivatives. In both cases, DCOM comprises a set of replacement and
additional DLLs, with some utilities, which provide both local and
remote COM capabilities. It is therefore now an inherent part of
Win32-based platforms, and will be made available on other platforms
by other organizations over time.
I understand that COM is really a way to program (i.e. like structured programming, or OO programming). However it is a little old. So I was just wondering what has really replaced this set of specifications? Will I find this in .NET documentation?
COM has not been replaced. The Component Object Model is a core part of Windows and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
COM provides you with one mechanism of inter process communication (communicating between applications on a machine), it is also used as a much simpler (for the consumer) system of sharing dlls. Its COM (or ActiveX, or OLE - all the same) that enables VBA to work so well in MS Office, it is the foundation of ActiveX controls.
COM is not a way to program (unlike OOP etc) it is a technology that works on windows to make access to other applications during runtime easier.
.NET can use COM object with wrappers, and if you want to allow any app to access your functionality, its still best to provide a COM wrapper.
Other methods of inter app coms now exist such as ZeroMQ.
The original specification for COM is old in age, but the specification as well as the concepts are still in use, and you can still create and consume COM objects.
For .NET, you can start by looking at the following links:
Com Interop Part 1: C# Client Tutorial (C#) # MSDN
Interoperating with unmanaged code # MSDN
In addition, there are other specs that are very similar to COM or have semantics that are the same. Most notably, XPCOM is in use in FireFox for their plugin spec and also used internally to FireFox to connectable objects.
XPCOM # MDN (Mozilla)
WinRT is an upcoming platform update for windows that is also heavy in COM concepts.
There are some useful here: Why is WinRT unmanaged # StackOverflow
For .NET developers, a lot of the declarative overhead is hidden as mentioned here: WinRT demystified - Miguel de Icaza
The head of the spec is here: The Windows Runtime # MSDN
And in the context of COM, developing WinRT components with C++ has similarities, although some syntax is borrowed from managed C++: Creating Windows Runtime Components in C++ # MSDN
Visual C++. I have to implement some drawing and printing functionality that will be incorporated into (other developers') COM dll. Firstly I thought of doing everything using pure GDI and nothing more, but it seems that printing and print previewing is hell of a job to be done in GDI compared to the MFC implementation. So I decided to focus on MFC. Quick side question here: Is my choice right? I mean, are any easy ways of implementing printing (and print-preview) without MFC?
Now that I need MFC (assuming if you also agree with this), I have two questions about how to do it:
1) I believe the COM dll is the ATL project (it's not my code, some other developers independently develop it). Can I enable MFC support in that dll? What are the risks/limitations/drawbacks of having MFC runtime in the COM server? And if you advice doing this, how can I do it?
2) As much as I want to affect the third-party COM server's code as little as possible, I thought it might be the better approach to implement my code as a separate MFC-based DLL, and load and use that DLL from COM server. Do you advice doing this? What are the risks/limitations/drawbacks in this situation?
Shortly, I want to use MFC's drawing and especially printing capabilities in my code, which itself should be integrated in another developers' COM dll (which itself is utilized in a large corporate application). I'm no expert in COM technology so I'm a little bit confused. What are my best options?
You can use MFC in your own dll internally, and expose functionality to your users with non MFC intruded function: for example if you need to pass a point from/to ypur caller, use the GDI standard POINT structure, then convert it to a CPoint to use internally. In this case you don't need to enamble use of MFC in the ATL project ( that is possible anyway ) but of course you need to distribute or link with the MFC dll. If you want mantain the caller com dll as clean as possible, you can definitely create your own ATL+MFC dll and expose your functions via com interfaces too, but keep in mynd to avoid put MFC related objects in the interface.
Printing and print preview is a hell of a job unless you're using MFC Document/View Architecture. Will your COM expose such advanced UI?
If your COM must be independent of .NET then MFC is the way to go, otherwise I would use .NET. If you choose MFC, make sure you link to it statically. Otherwise you will most likely end up with runtime errors on machines where the necessary MFC version is missing.
Except for this, I wouldn't worry about compatibility since the idea of COM is to let the underlying magic do the marshaling of integers, strings and other objects.
I have trouble understanding XPCOM. How is it different from COM? What makes it cross platform?
Is it a framework with a set of libraries that you can use to do some jobs?
Also, does Component Object Model means every functionality is implemented in component so we can use it without knowing the detail implementation?
Can you someone help me understand this please?
Thanks,
Chan.
I have trouble understanding XPCOM.
How is it different from COM?
XPCOM is Mozilla's own, cross-platform (hence the XP bit) version of COM.
What makes it cross platform?
It is implemented in a library that has been ported to many platforms by contributors to the Mozilla open-source project. You can build it or download a binary for any platform that you wish and, in the extremely remote possibility that you want to use it on a platform that is not already supported, it should be straightforward to port it yourself.
Also, does Component Object Model
means every functionality is
implemented in component so we can use
it without knowing the detail
implementation?
Yes, spot on. The idea is for a language-independent framework that enables different components to communicate and interact, without requiring any special knowledge of the language that any particular component is implemented in. So javascript code can call C++ code, for instance.
This is achieved by components publishing well-defined interfaces, using a language called IDL (or, in XPCOM's case, XPIDL). These interfaces make use of well-defined types with mappings in each of the supporting languages. Every interface inherits from a common base interface, which provides standard methods for reference-counting and type-inference (called IUnknown in COM and nsISupports in XPCOM).
Can you someone help me understand
this please?
In terms of online resources, there are dedicated areas on both the MSDN (for COM) and the MDC (for XPCOM). If you want to really understand the motivation for COM and why it is the way it is, I recommend picking up Don Box's Essential COM. And of course, if you have any specific questions that need answering, you can always come here to ask them. :)
I have an application that is written in SBCL and is deployed as an executable on Windows. The need has arisen for it to interact with Excel via COM and another application via DDE (I know, I know).
DDE is simple enough for me to have quickly wrapped what I needed in a very small, simple to maintain C library. COM, on the other hand, seems like a large enough project to just implement this portion of the functionality in Python with the Win32 extensions library.
This, to me, is annoying in that a lot of CL code is being augmented with some Python that is of varying degrees of integration with the main project.
I've seen that LispWorks and Allegro CL both allow for COM interaction but cannot find any open source implementations of the same functionality via google or CLiki.
Does such a thing exist?
There are bindings called cl-win32ole, implemented using CFFI.
You are asking for Excel integration, so the Excel example included in cl-win32ole might be of interest to you:
I'm not aware of open source COM wrappers that work on multiple CL implementations, SBCL including.
Your best bet might be checking out Corman Lisp which is Windows specific and includes a COM server. Check out its features page: http://www.cormanlisp.com/features.html
My impression is that Corman Lisp isn't actively supported any more but I could be very wrong on that, but at least you might glean something useful from its source code.