I have a DLL written in C# and set for COM visibility. I have it setup as a side-by-side assembly and can successfully deploy the application to client PCs registration free. My question is related to the development PC. Is it possible to compile against the DLL in a similar registration-free manner or is registration required on the development machine? I have tried adding the DLL directly though the Project -> References menu and get an error stating "Can't add a reference to the specific file." The DLL is sitting in the same directory as the .vbp file and I have tried adding the DLL both with and without the client app manifest being present.
I have tried adding the DLL directly though the Project -> References menu
That adds a reference to a type library. A type library is a language-independent description of the types in a COM component, VB6 uses it to know how generate efficient code and to provide type checking and auto-completion. A type library is the exact equivalent of metadata in a .NET assembly.
Traditionally, and the way VB6 did it, the type library was embedded as a resource in a DLL. So you are probably used to picking a DLL in the dialog. That however doesn't work so well when the DLL is generated by C#, the type library can only be generated after the C# code is compiled. You have to pick the .tlb file in the VB6 dialog. The traditional way starts with the COM component being described in the IDL language, the type library can be generated before the code is compiled so can easily be embedded in the final DLL. It is technically possible to do it in C# as well, but the build steps are very laborious and painful, you essentially have to build the DLL twice with different build commands.
The type library for a C# library is normally generated in one of three ways:
Using Project + Properties, Build tab, "Register for COM interop" option. This requires VS to run elevated so it can write to the registry. You start VS elevated by right-clicking its shortcut and picking "Run as Administrator"
By running Regasm.exe, using the /tlb:filename option. An alternative for the 1st bullet and necessary if you don't want to run VS elevated for some reason. Using the /codebase option on your dev machine is also wise to make it work exactly like the 1st bullet and not require putting the DLL into the GAC with gacutil.exe
By running the Tlbexp.exe utility, the type library exporter for .NET assemblies. No registration is done, it only generates the .tlb file.
The first bullet is the normal choice and very desirable because you can never forget to update the type library this way. It is perfectly fine on a dev machine since you only really care about reg-free deployment on the user's machine. You probably got into trouble by not doing this anymore.
Using the 3rd choice is okay and more compatible with your goals, run Tlbexp from the Visual Studio Command Prompt. Just keep in mind that you have to do it again when you make changes to your C# code. Forgetting this once and losing clumps of head-hair trying to figure out why your C# changes don't seem to be effective or getting hard-to-diagnose error codes gives you lots of reasons to consider the 1st bullet again :) You can emulate the reg-free scenario by running Regasm.exe with the /uninstall option.
I developped a vb6 program then I build an installation wizard with visual studio interdev.
I used "dependency walker" and "process explorer" to find out the missing DLLs but there is always a problem with :
IESHIMS.DLL
WER.DLL
MPR.DLL
These dlls shown by dependency walker.
And when installing the program on another machine I have these error messages :
uxtheme.dll failed to register
msdatsrc.tlb failed to register etc..
PS : no problem on a machine where visual studio is installed.
Any Idea to fix this issue?
Thanks
Dependency Walker is not an appropriate tool to troubleshoot VB6 dependencies. It works well enough for DLLs written in C or C++ that use implicit dependencies. Although it hasn't kept up with the times and has trouble with DLLs that are stored in the Windows side-by-side cache or are delay loaded. Delay loading is what generates the warnings on ieshims.dll et al.
VB6 uses COM, which loads DLLs dynamically with LoadLibrary(). You'll never see such a dependency back in Depends unless you use the Profile option. Such DLLs are found back through the registry, the reason you needed to write an installer and tinker with regsvr32.exe.
You have to be pretty careful when writing installers like that, VB6 is old and can depend on operating system components that have been updated many times since 1998. Like uxtheme.dll, an important operating system DLL that implements visual styles. Having your installer overwrite the existing one on the user's machine is, well, disastrous. Although it is probably protected by Windows through its File System Protection feature, something that got added as a counter-measure against broken installers.
Giving proper advice is here difficult beyond "do no harm". A commercial installer like InstallShield or Wise (which I liked back then) is the best way to avoid shooting off the customer's leg. Fairly sure they still support VB6 installs. Microsoft makes a pre-cooked installer available for VB6 that installs all the core vb6 runtime components. You can download it here.
You should ALWAYS double check and verify any dependancies that you think your application needs.
All the files you mentioned are system DLLs and MUST NOT be distributed.
For a VB6 application you need the basic runtimes, and any DLLs you explicitly reference/use if and only if you have permission from the authors of those DLLs and instructions on the correct procedure and location for installing them.
For the standard Microsoft provided OCX files, these normally just need to be copied to the system32 folder and registered.
See redist.txt in the root of your Visual Studio installation for more details.
I have a seemingly random problem where my project will run using an old version of a DLL file that no longer exists. Sometimes the real version of the DLL file will be used, other times an ancient version of the DLL file will be used. Who knows where Visual Studio is getting this DLL file from - it's months out of date!
I know that it is using the old DLL file, because when the application runs I start getting weird 'TypeLoadExceptions', complaining that methods don't exist or don't have implementations.
The following actions will sometimes help, sometimes not:
Restarting Visual Studio
Restarting the computer
Cleaning and rebuilding the solution
Deleting everything in \WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v4.0.30319\Temporary ASP.NET Files
Searching for and deleting instances of the DLL file in \Documents and Settings\username\Local Settings\Temp
Sometimes I perform all of the above steps, and it still uses an old copy of the DLL file. Where is it hiding it?!
The same issue exists on our TeamCity server which is using MSBuild. When TeamCity tries to run unit tests it uses an old DLL file.
Now, I know that I can use assembly redirection in the web.config file, but the version number of the DLL file hasn't changed (I don't bother to update it, so it just stays at version 1). I don't want to have to start versioning the DLL files just to solve this problem. I would just like to know which particular caches I need to clear so that I can get on with developing.
It hides it in the GAC. There it may reside indefinitely. Using a more recent version may indeed solve the problem, but there is an outstanding bug in Visual Studio that has to do with choosing the correct version of DLL files. (If DLL Hell wasn't bad enough, the Visual Studio team is making it worse!)
Finding it in the GAC is tricky, and I cannot advise you on how to do that, but once the old version is deleted from there, it will not be found again. Sometimes, even though you are pointing the compiler at a newer version (by date), it will use the older version, because it has the same version level (by version). That is its bug.
Who knows where Visual Studio is getting this dll from - it's months
out of date!
The Modules Window is your friend...
It'll tell you exactly where that file is coming from. You can even use it with arbitrary processes if you attach the debugger.
I too would guess that they're hiding in the GAC.
You can look in 'C:\Windows\assembly' to see all the dlls and unregister yours from there.
The problem may exists with the build order or your projects.
If your Test project is built before the application project, this cause the behaviour you describe. To fix this: right click on your main project in VS and select the Project Dependencies... option and check the build order. Changes to the build subsequence can be made here by correctly setting these dependencies.
I had a similiar problem (but without Visual Studio). I am loading a .NET dll using UnsafeLoadFrom.
On one computer (a terminal server) the old file still remains being used, regardless of updated version numbers, etc.
The reason is simple: As long as a program instance is running, which has already loaded the old dll, the new dll will never be used. All further UnsafeLoadFrom will become the old dll although the old version doesn't exist on the harddisk anymore, because it has already loaded some time ago.
The solution is to shut down all running instances of the application or even restart the computer. Then all new instances will get the updated dll.
In my case, this was caused switching to Release mode, which had a different configuration (that used different location of the DLL).
In my case, I use Visual Studio to Publish Website, and though I check the reference of the dll file has changed, but the published dll still is old. Finally I new a Publish Web Profile and choose the right configuration (such as Debug - x86 / Release - Any CPU), publish again then the dll is corrected.
While this question is old, maybe someone will stumble upon it again in his/her quest for finding a solution.
In my case i got a CS0433 error for an ASP.Net page. After deleting the content in the obj\ and bin\ folders of the project, it worked again. Probably has to be done with a closed Visual Studio. Maybe also clean out those folders in referenced projects in the same solution (if used in the project and not pulled via Nuget).
In my case, the old DLL was in
C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\assembly\GAC_MSIL\MyDLL\MyDLL.dll
It DID NOT show up in c:\Windows\assembly.
I did a search of my drive for MyDLL, and it showed up as indicated above. I was debugging my test app at the time, and tried to delete the offending folder...no go...it was locked by Visual Studio. I had to stop debugging my app, close Visual Studio, and then delete the folder. Problem solved!! I don't know how my DLL got there, but it hasn't showed up there since I deleted it.
It's possible that the DLL is being referenced from another folder. It could even be on a network drive if you have one in your PATH environment variable. Here's how Windows searches for DLLs:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/7d83bc18%28v=vs.80%29.aspx
In My Visual Studio 2015, I ensured that the offending Visual Studio project's Reference Path Listing is empty:
If you find such problem ,delete your Reference dll and pdb extensionfile add new references and rebuild your project .This often happens due to no rebuild of project,commit and updates.
The fix for me was making sure that the virtual directory in IIS was pointing to the correct directory. I have two projects on my system, a v4 and a v5. The virtual directory on my dev system was pointing to the v4 bin directory instead of my v5 bin directory - oops!
The file that was being cached in the dll, I couldn't trace the file, so I ended up renaming the file. This might not resolve the problem mentioned here but this was the fix that worked for me related to this question.
I tried a ton of things including re-installing VS 2107.
You can see where the DLL files are being loaded from in your Output window. After going through all mine looking for project DLL, I found it.
Clearing this worked for me.
C:\Users\YourUser\AppData\Local\assembly\dl3\222Q4G1T.8AT\JBEAR7PB.E3J\8bfcf9ab\6e61cbd5_30acd401\YourDLL.dll'
I actually deleted all the files in:
C:\Users\YourUser\AppData\Local\assembly\
Holy Crow! I had an old, old suite of applications including 2 web services and a bunch of class libraries and a click once application. Well, click once stopped publishing for VS 2005 with a bunch of 'not found' errors. So, rather than hack away at my registry as suggested on this site, I figured it was time to upgrade the projects to 2017. Well, when I did this, the projects references in my web service projects got lost. Then, rather than helpfully just telling me that with errors, VS 2017 must have went to some cached file in C:\Users\XXX\AppData\Local\Temp\WebSitePublish or C:\Users\XXX\AppData\Local\Microsoft\VisualStudio\8.0\ProjectAssemblies or C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v4.0.30319\Temporary ASP.NET Files\root and 'helpfully' just used those files instead! I had to do a hardcore search with a custom program to find all the files on my C:\ drive and delete them before I finally got the errors!
So, I've got a single VB6 executable that references multiple VB6 COM DLLs. Is it possible for me to generate, on-the-fly, a manifest for the executable as well as a manifest for each of the referenced DLLs? If so, then how?
I would like to perform this operation as part of our build process without having to register the COM DLLs as part of the process.
NOTE: All the reg-free COM examples that I've found so far involve .NET interop, which is not a requirement for what I'm doing.
[EDIT]
After performing some preliminary testing using Unattended Make My Manifest, I've found that its just not as user-friendly as I would like. And, since there's only a Sample.ini file for documentation I've had a pretty hard time understanding what should be put into that file compared to what doesn't need to go into that file. Anyways, I've decided to craft manifests using my own tool. Hopefully, I'll get permission from my employers to release the code as open source.
*For now, if you're in the same position that I'm in and you would like to create a build and production environment that uses side-by-side/registration-free COM interactions, just know that its possible. I would recommend crafting them by hand with a simple DLL and consumer app at first, and then incrementally building on that until it suites your specific needs.**
We are using Unattended Make My Manifest in daily builds to create portable versions. It creates a single manifest that can be embedded to the executable with mt.exe
You could try Make my manifest which is a tool to create the manifest for a VB6 program. I don't know whether it can run automatically as part of a build process.
We have a Powerbuilder 10 application that is using .Net COM assemblies. We are trying to embed the manifest in the PB application (to invoke COM assemblies without registration). The merged manifest file has added sections for dependecies on the .Net COM assemblies. We have tries various tools to inject the new manifest with different results
- using GenMan32 to inject truncates the application from 6MB to 45KB.
- using ResourceTuner, the file size looks okay, but trying to launch application gives "Fatal Disk Error".
Any suggestions on invoked .Net ComEnabled assembly from PB without registration?
Have you tried it with an external manifest and ensured that works? If an external manifest doesn't work, then the manifest information isn't correct.
Once you have a valid external manifest, you might try the Manifest Tool (MT.EXE) from the .Net SDK. It works well with true EXE files. As Terry noted though, the PB generated executable contains additional information that tools that manipulate the EXE need to respect or they will break it.
http://blogs.msdn.com/patricka/archive/2009/12/09/answers-to-several-application-manifest-mysteries-and-questions.aspx
This is more a redirection than an answer. One thing you need to be aware of is that PowerBuilder produces executables that do not follow standards for Windows executable files. Essentially they are a bootstrap routine to load the PowerBuilder virtual machine, plus a collection of class definitions (objects). The cases you've brought up are not the first I've heard of where utilities meant to modify executables don't work on PowerBuilder executables.
As for a positive contribution on what other directions to follow, I don't really know enough to give qualified advice. If it were me, I'd try to register the COM object if ConnectToNewObject() fails, but I've got no idea if that possible or if that route is a dead end.
Good luck,
Terry.