How can you publish a WinForm that uses a .dll extension into one .exe file? I'm using VB.NET on Visual Studio 2013.
I have tried several methods such as using only the program .exe file from both the Debug and Release folder but these didn't work in isolation - a runtime error happened every time a command from the extension was used, as if it didn't exist.
My problem is packaging the entire program into one file. I don't want to have to use ClickOnce applications because you can't use a custom logo and so it kinda looks bad. I'll use it if there's no alternative.
I realised that the answer was to use the setup.exe file when publishing. Also, changing the logo of a ClickOnce program is possible.
Related
I have a file-translation library in the form of a Win32 EXE and a stub DLL that feeds parameters to it. I have written a lightweight (~500 lines) VB.net app that creates the file to be translated, then calls the DLL to launch the EXE. Unfortunately, this results in my EXE, their EXE, the DLL and another supporting file. I'd prefer to have a single file.
Following the basic idea here doesn't seem to help - I need to have all three files able to see each other, and it's not clear how to do this from those examples. I've also seen this, but again, this appears to be running an EXE that is "beside" the .net code, not embedded within it.
So, is there a way to run the EXE/DLL/supporting file "in situ"? Are the Assemblies ultimately a directory structure where I can run the EXE? And if so, how does one find/refer to these files?
I am a bit of a novice to writing code so my apologies if this sounds a bit school boy ish,
I have created an Addin for a software I use at work, Autodesk Inventor, I am having an issue deploying the files to the correct location.
I have created the addin, all I need to do is put a dll file and a .Addin file into the correct location.
I thought I could do this by creating a new VB project in VS2010 and if I added the 2 files as references I could then write something that when the exe file is run it put the files in the correct location,
Is this Possible?
If you want to do a Windows Installer deployment, then read Windows Installer Deployment Walkthroughs.
If you want to do a ClickOnce deployment, then read ClickOnce Deployment in .NET Framework 2.0
This is driving me crazy. I have developed a .NET COM DLL that is used by a VB6 DLL wrapper in order to update and replace some legacy functions in an application.
I am now trying to remove the requirement to use regasm on client machines so have worked out how to do that on a test DLL which all works fine.
I branched the DLL just in case and added an app.manifest file. Everything else worked out fine and I got it all working. The manifest is embedded and Visual Studio 2012 generates a mydll.dll.manifest file in the release folder.
Then I went back to the original trunk and added an app.manifest file (no point in merging as there were no code changes). I copied the contents of the branch into the app.manifest file and built the release version. The manifest is embedded in the DLL but no mydll.dll.manifest file is generated.
I know that it's not strictly necessary to have the mydll.dll.manifest file but I'd like things to be consistent (and for some reason the test process doesn't produce the same results with the trunk version) so how can I force it to be created?
This is a VB.NET DLL project so it doesn't have (or I can't find) the 'Generate Manifest' property drop down mentioned in the first answer here. How can I set this? Or is there a way to set it by editing the project file directly?
References:
Original walkthrough article and some corrections.
Overview by Junfeng Zhang in two articles plus a useful tool
You are making a fairly common mistake. A reg-free COM manifest helps an application find a COM server without looking in the registry to locate the DLL. Embedding the manifest in the DLL is like trying to solve the chicken and egg problem, Windows cannot possibly find that manifest if it cannot locate the DLL first.
The manifest needs to be part of the client app. Which is tricky since it is VB6, it doesn't support embedding manifests in its executables.
You could tinker with the mt.exe tool, an SDK utility that supports embedding manifests in an executable. You'd have to run it by hand after building the VB6 binaries. That's unfun and very likely to cause trouble when you forget. It is in general not a joyful tool to use, documentation is meager, incomplete and unhelpful, a chronic problem with manifests.
The fall back is a separate app.exe.manifest file, what Windows will look for next when it cannot find a manifest embedded in the executable. Where "app.exe" must be renamed to the name of the VB6 program. The EXE, not the DLL. This now also gives you a chance to avoid having to register the VB6 DLL, presumably what you really want if you truly want to make your program run reg-free. The disadvantage is that it will not work when you debug your VB6 program, wrong EXE. You'd also need a vb6.exe.manifest, located in the VB6 install directory.
Needless to say perhaps, very hard to get ahead with VB6 here. It just wasn't made to help you do this, they didn't have a time machine in 1998.
I have to admit that I don't know VB at all, but in the case of C++ and C# Visual Studio projects I previously had to resort to calling mt.exe in a post-build step in order to get the DLL manifest I wanted. Maybe that workaround would work in your case as well?
Is it possible to create a VB.Net application which users can just run without installing it first.
If not, is it possible in another .Net language.
If not, how IS it possible :)
PS: The application only has to run under Windows (>= XP).
If they have the .NET Framework installed (the version of it that you developed it), they only need the .exe. You can find the .exe file in the bin directory of your projects folder in your Visual Studio workspace.
If they do not have the framework installed, you'll need to produce an installation for them. It's extremely easy with Visual Studio by just creating a setup project in the same solution as your code.
As long as the user has the .net runtime installed, and your exe has any needed resources in the same folder (dll's, images, ect) theres no problem with that.
If you mean without installing the .net framework though, that won't be possible.
just build the program, and go into the (assuming the project name is app1) app1/app1/bin/debug/ dir. there should be a file there called app1.exe. this file is the compiled .exe from you project. any other computer will be able to run this without doing any installation (provided they have the .NET framework installed (it comes standard on any computer with an os > WinXP))
EDIT: If you were building with debug configuration, it would be app1/app1/bin/debug/, but if you were building with release configuration (which would probably be a better idea if you are distributing) the path would be app1/app1/bin/release/
If you mean running it without the .NET Framework, it used to be possible, but apparently the company's website is no longer in English so I have no idea what's happened to it.
EDIT: If you were building with debug configuration, it would be
app1/app1/bin/debug/, but if you were building with release
configuration (which would probably be a better idea if you are
distributing) the path would be app1/app1/bin/release/
I am developer and have no administration rights to live(production) network.
I had to find away to deploy an app without installation... and my app is self updating this cause other problems too....
The production network Computer check/monitors the file versions etc, so updating in the program files can not be done, where a MSI has been used for deployment.
Using this above I am able to copy and Run the App from the User Profile (where the user has full rights).
lets understand how program runs-
an .exe needs some function which are not inside the .exe, such as , for example substring() function. these predefined function resides in some .dll libraries.
when .exe is executed by user, .exe first finds the .dll and then the function inside that particular .dll.
.exe first looks within the current folder for that .dll
if not found then it searches that in PATHs. (PATH is Environment variable which value is a list of folders such as System32 etc.)
an .exe usually needs only 3 things - .exe itself, .dll which predefined function it is using, and some ActiveX controls(.ocx). apart from these 3, .exe only uses resources (such as icons etc).
lets focus on these 3(.exe, .dll, .ocx)
first you need to check what .dlls your .exe is using. you can easiely do this by using a dependency walker.
then make sure all these .dlls (that dependency walker is showing,or in other words- all these dlls whose functions your .exe needs) are either in current folder(in which your .exe resides) or in the PATHs.
if this step is done then your .exe has high chances to run whithout "installing".
the only problem is that some .dll and all of .ocx, needs to be registered first(means they have to have some kind of registry entry). they are not ready to use just by copying and pasting in current folder or PATHs.
but you can register these .dlls and .ocx's by using regsvr32 (with command line).
after that your .exe should not face any problem to run successfully.
hope you got the main concept.
VB.NET: Can the .EXE built by VS2005 be deployed as a standalone EXE?
When I change the mode in VS2005 to "Release" and build the solution, the bin\Release directory then contains the solution .EXE file, but also a .pdb, vshost.exe and .xml file. What are these extra files and are they necessary?
I copied the .exe file to another machine and it executed properly, but there was a significant delay when it first executed - thereafter it was like any other program. What is the reason for this, and can it be helped? Is it because the other 3 files in the Release folder are not there with it?
The project template that you used to get the project started doesn't have very optimum settings. You'll get the clutter as a result. It is easily fixable. Start with Project + Properties, Compile tab. Make sure the Release build is selected, upper left combo box labeled Configuration.
The .pdb file contains debugging symbols. You don't need it for the Release build although you get slightly more informative exception messages. The stack trace will contain line numbers. You cannot trust them for a Release build though. Click Advanced Compile Options, Generate debug info = None.
The .xml file contains IntelliSense info, it will be generated when you use XML Documentation in your source code. Meant to be used for assemblies that are referenced in another project, quite pointless for an EXE project. Turn off the "Generate XML documentation file" option on the Compile tab.
The .vshost.exe file is a helper process for debugging your app. It hosts a custom version of CLR, configured differently to help with security issues while debugging. It also makes the output of Console.WriteLine() appear in the Visual Studio Output window. There's little point in having it created for the Release build. Select the Debug tab and uncheck the "Enable the Visual Studio hosting process" option.
After making these changes and rebuilding, you should only have the .exe file left in the bin\Release folder.
The slow startup is what's called a "cold start" of the .NET framework assemblies. It is caused by a slow or fragmented hard drive. Since the DLLs were never loaded before, the disk drive needs to dig through the GAC to find the files. You can probably improve it by defragging the disk. Cold starts are never as fast as warm starts though.
A classic trick, used by Microsoft Office and Adobe Acrobat, is to warm up the file system cache by loading their DLLs at login time. They are called "optimizer" in the Startup folder or Run registry key. Very annoying btw, they slow down other programs. You can do the same thing by writing your own little .NET program that doesn't do anything but create a few classes. Put a shortcut to it in the Startup folder.
You should be able to just ship the EXE. The PDB and VSHOST files are used for debugging, you should be able to configure your Release build to not generate these files. You can set this in the 'Advanced Compiler Settings' dialog from the Compile tab in your project properties.
alt text http://philippursglove.com/stackoverflow/compilerdebugoptions.png
(Hat-tip to Amissisco for pointing out it's the same dialog in VS2005/2008.)
I'd imagine the 'significant delay' you experienced when running the program for the first time was due to the .NET Framework being loaded into memory (and probably then paged back out to disk) - unfortunately there's not much getting round that one. You could try throwing hardware at it - memory and a solid-state disk would probably give an appreciable speed increase but may not be a cost-effective option if your application is going to be released on a significant number of PCs. However this should only take place the first time you fire up the application after a machine restart, which is why subsequent launches of your application are quicker.
Only .Exe file is required for deployment. But its better to create a setup. If you are using App.Config file / Application settings, you need to copy the exename.config file too.
Yes, you can deploy it as a standalone EXE, together with any third party DLLs that do not belong to the .NET Framework as well as other resources such as application.config. images and/or other media assets.
The .pdb contains additional symbolic debug info which is not necessary for your application to run. It's meant to assist debugging so that you see your source code instead of assembly code in the debugger.
vshost.exe is used by Visual Studio only, not too sure about the exact purpose of it though.
Whether these three files (.pdb, vshost.exe and the .xml) are present with the .exe should not affect the loading speed of your application. As .NET applications have to be compiled upon first run, the delay that you're experiencing should be partially due to that.