I am in the process of creating a lightweight application in vb.NET, and was wondering if it is possible to create an application that uses some of the dll's within the .NET 2.0 framework, without actually using the framework itself.
For instance, can I take the dlls from the .NET directory that the app will reference (and only those dlls that it references), put them into a folder inside the app's directory, and then just change the reference path to that new location? That way, when the app is installed on pc's without .net framework installed, the dlls can just be zipped and copied over to the newly installed app directory.
This may all sound a bit confusing, just let me know if you need any more info.
It is quite unlikely that you'll be able to do that.
There is this thing called .net framework client profile for creating lightweight .net apps that do not need the whole framework but you still need to have that installed.
I would recommend using something like Delphi if you need a standalone exe that does not depend on anything.
There is concept of Client Profile in .NET 3.5 and .NET 4.
That is subset of .NET, smallest necessary fraction of .NET that client must have in order to be able to run .NET applications targeting client profile.
There is more detailed overview of the features you may use when targeting client profile.
Unless you move to .Net 4 or above, you need full framework on the client computers. Having said that, which OS are you targeting? Newer MS OS often come with .Net framework installed already.
Related
Can anyone help as to how to use the run time binaries found in the link below?
https://www.microsoft.com/net/download/windows
Basically, we are moving to .NET Core (we have been using .NET framework 4.0 for many years - so big shift as you can guess). I am kind of nervous to install .NET core on the production server (Windows Server 2012). Is it safe to install .NET Core on a server running .NET framework 4.0? If no, is there any way I can get the .NET Core runtime on to the server without installing them (kind of copying portal libraries) so that I can start with the beta testing of the app. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!
EDIT:
It is not duplicate, One of the main questions I had if I can use portable binaries on the server to run my app, without actually installing them (got the answer below, thanks again). Not sure someone down voted this without any reason. It makes the developers nervous to ask a question in StackOverflow. if they can mention the reason that would be great!
There are no issues when installing .NET Core and .NET Framework on the same machine. They are designed to allow them to be installed side-by-side.
However you do need to install the .NET Core runtime onto the server to allow the code to be run because the OS has native dependencies that need to be present. See this link for more information.
With .NET Core you can do framework dependent deployments (FDD) and self-contained deployments (SCD). FDD requires any shared assemblies to be present on the server i.e. System.* assemblies etc. but an SCD only requires the basic runtime/native dependencies. For an SCD your app deployment would include any .NET Core shared assemblies in it's deployment package.
You can read more about FDD and SCD here
Also there is more information about the native dependencies on different OS platforms here
I have a project done in VB.NET and I want to publish it for distribution. I know that when I build solution It creates an .Exe. But that requires local resorouces. If I build for release I know it works but it still needs the .Net platform installed. Is there anyway to make a true standalone .exe or something that would run on a persons computer if they do not have .NET installed. Also the ClickOnce application thing is not a wanted Solution.
Is there any converter program that can do this for me?
The .NET framework represents the basic prerequisite to run a .NET program; equivalently than having Windows installed is the prerequisite to run a Windows program. Bear in mind that any Windows version includes the .NET framework (and, actually, it tends to involve top-priority updates and thus are automatically perfomed by Windows Update in many cases). A big proportion of the programs running on Windows created during the last 10 years are built on the .NET framework; a relevant proportion of the sites (like this one, for instance) are built on ASP.NET and thus the given server has to include the .NET framework. If overall compatility is a concern for you, you might rely on a-bit-old .NET version: the latest one in VS 2010 (4.0) should be fine for most of modern computers; but you can even rely on the previous one (3.5) to be completely sure. Lastly, bear in mind that a .NET program can also be run under a OS other than Windows (Linux or MacOS, for example); although, from my past experiences, these are not too reliable situations. Nonetheless, in case of being interested in other OS, you should do some research/testing on this front to see if the available options offer what you are looking for.
SUMMARY: the exe file generated by the Visual Studio is actually what you call "standalone .exe". One of its defining features is the .NET version (which can be changed in the Project Settings); a program can only be run on computers with a .NET framework (or equivalent) equal or newer than the one on which it was built. The 4.0 version should be OK for most of new/properly-updated computers; the 3.5 .NET would work with virtually any computer (although, logically, it includes less features than the 4.0 one).
---------------------------- UPDATE AFTER COMMENTS --------------------
From some comments, I have undertood that my statement wasn't as clear as I thought and this is the reason for this update
.NET is pre-installed in Windows only since Vista. XP does not include the .NET runtime by default. The reason for not having mentioned this issue in my answer was that having a XP Windows without .NET is highly unlikely. Firstly because this is a top-priority, automatic update and thus one of the first times the computer is connected to internet "Windows Update" will take care of this. And secondly because this is the basic framework for any Microsoft programming over the last 10 years and thus a Windows computer not having it will not be able to run almost anything. With this last sentence, I don't mind that most of the programs are built on .NET, but that for a Windows-based environment most of nowadays basic requirements do include .NET.
It was also pointed out that there is some compatibility problems between different .NET versions (that various side-by-side versions were required). The basic Microsoft approach to the different .NET versions is backwards compatibility, what means that a given .NET version can run any program built with that version or older. This is theoretically right, but not always right in fact. My approach to this problem is relying on a bit old .NET version (3.5) and not using too new/untested features (e.g., WPF). If you want a for-sure overall compatible program you should work quite a lot on this front (compatibility between versions is one of most typical problem of any programming platform), instead expecting Microsoft to take care of everything. Thus, in principle, just one .NET version (the last one) has to be installed (which, on the other hand, is not the case for a big proportion of computers; for example: computer including the 3.5 version being updated, over the years, to 4.0 and 4.5 by maintaining the previous versions).
Lastly, I want to highlight that my intention with this answer is not defending any programming approach over any other one; I am just describing what is there from the point of view of your question "can I remove the .NET part?" -> no, you cannot; there is no (sensible) way to do that. If you want to rely on a different programming platform you should get informed about it (I am sure that Camilo Martin will be more than happy to help you on this front). If you prefer to rely on .NET, be sure that you can generate an overall compatible program (to be run on Windows).
Easy way to convert in .exe in VB.NET-2010:
Create New Project
Select Windows Application And Save Proper Path
Comple Project then Select File-> Save All
Select Build->Start Build
Your Project .exe Created Your Project Save Path:
Select Windows Application 1
Select bin Folder
Select Debug Folder
And in Debug folder your .exe File is ready.
Quick Basic once made and executable (.exe) directly form their VB code, but I wouldn't recommend converting to Quick Basic. You can look at Mono to see if they have anything yet. (mono allows you to use compiled vb.net in other operating systems).
Ezirit Reactor makes a single executable, but it's not free.
You can bundle .NET Framework into your distribution so that users don't have download it.
Why do you need an executable (.exe)? If the reason is for security and to minimize chances of reverse engineering, then get a good obfuscator.
I'm having a problem with assembly resolution on an end-user machine and I believe it's related to using Portable Class Libraries....
I have a .NET 4.0 application that was originally written in Visual Studio 2010. Recently we upgraded to Visual Studio 2012 and we've created a few projects that are Portable Class Libraries. I don't believe we need these features now, but we're also building a Windows 8 Store application that might benefit from these libraries.
When I compile my project, what exactly does the portable library feature do? I expect that it allows me to run it on different frameworks without modification or recompiling.
When I look at the library in reflector dotPeek it shows the Platform attribute as:
.NETPortable,Version=v4.0,Profile=Profile5
And the references seem 2.0-ish:
mscorlib, Version=2.0.5.0
System, Version=2.0.5.0
System.Runtime.Serialization, Version=2.0.5.0
When I run the application on this end-user's machine, I see an error in the log file:
Could not load file or assembly, 'System.Core, Version=2.0.5.0...'
Googling System.Core 2.0.5.0 seems to refer to SilverLight -- which appears to be one of the targeted frameworks.
This machine does not have Visual Studio installed, but has .NET 4.0 (4.0.3 update)
Is there something I should be doing differently to compile, something I should investigate in my dependencies or something I should be looking to install on the end-user machine? What does the 2.0.5.0 refer to?
For .NET 4, you need an update (KB2468871) for Portable Class Libraries to work. From the KB Article:
Feature 5
Changes to the support portable libraries. These changes include API
updates and binder modifications. This update enables the CLR to bind
successfully to portable libraries so that a single DLL can run on the
.NET Framework 4, on Silverlight, on Xbox, or on the Windows Phone.
This update adds public Silverlight APIs to the .NET Framework 4 in
the same location. The API signatures will remain consistent across
the platform. All modifications are 100 percent compatible and will
not break any existing code.
Also see the "Deploying A .NET Framework App" section of the MSDN Portable Class Library Documentation.
EDIT: Actually, if the machine has .NET 4.0.3 installed as you mention, that should be sufficient. Can you double-check to make sure that it is actually installed?
I have an application that consists of a client-side application and a WebApi website.
My client-side stuff is targetting .NET 4 so that I don't have to insist that users install .NET 4.5. My website, however, is entirely under my control, so I'm targetting .NET 4.5.
There is one shared assembly, which I use for data access. It uses Entity Framework 5.
When I build the client application, the DLL used is version 4.4.xxx, whereas when I build the web application, the DLL is 5.0.xxx.
Up until now, I've been able to run the client application with no problems, and I've also been able to run the web application, again without problems.
However, I've now re-created my web application project from scratch (*), and suddenly I can't run it. I get a YSOD saying "Could not load file or assembly 'EntityFramework, Version=4.4.0.0 ..." at the point where my data-access assembly is first invoked.
Now, it's perfectly clear what that error means - it can't find the v4.4 DLL as used by the data-access assembly - but I don't understand why that's a problem with my new project when it wasn't a problem with my old project. As far as I can see, the same DLLs are referenced in each project.
(*) I should explain why I'm re-creating my project. I originally created the project in VS 2012 RC, and then later upgraded to the release version. Although this supposedly upgraded my project, I've had a few problems with it, and have also noticed some differences v. a newly-created project. So, to be on the safe side - and hopefully circumvent those other problems - I'm re-creating it from scratch.
So, my question: why is this suddenly a problem, and what can I do to resolve it?
Is the code depending on the assemblies set to require the exact version? If so, you will need a publisher policy for the EntityFramework assembly or bindingRedirect for the referencing application (web project).
Is it possible to make an vb.net application portable?
It is portable - build your .exe and copy it on your flash drive. Assuming it will be run where there is .net framework, there is no problem!
EDIT: A similar topic here: Writing USB Drive Portable Applications in C#
"portable" has more than one meaning, but if you mean a program that could also run on linux or mac than you need to think mono. Specifically, look at their migration analyzer.
Depends on what you mean by "portable". Certainly, you can build them without external dependencies on things like config files, registry settings, etc. You'll still need the .NET runtime installed on the target computer, though.
I seem to recall that you can use vb.net to write Silverlight apps; once compiled, this should be fairly portable (onto all Silverlight / Moonlight enabled browsers).
Of course, if you talk about web apps, the client (html) should already be portable, regardless of the server.
Whether it's a desktop application or a web application, the .Net framework needs to be installed on the machine that the app is run on. Generally, the .Net framework is installed with Windows.
It has to be the same version of the .Net framework as the app was developed in (1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, 3.5). Which version of the framework is installed depends on the version of Windows.
Just a thought!
Maybe you can make your app executable the normal way (with setup) and then make it into a portable application online using service described at
http://www.abtevrythng.com/2011/12/make-portable-applications-online-for.html#ixzz1flSBi6dZ
You can try to use the online portable app "converter" Cameyo to do it. Just install the Cameyo app, launch it, then install the application you made.
You must use VS 2015. Make all your reference dll's to be local copied. Build your solution (with no deploy file extension (publish-> options->deployment))and merge the exe file with your dll with ilmerge ( http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=17630 ) (download ILmerge-GUI too) from the Microsoft web site. And have good luck