Two simple COM IDL file questions I can't seem to find answers for, even with searching MSDN and the general internet:
Is there an interface attribute which lets me specify my interface is to be implemented by STA objects only, or is this a detail for my documentation alone? I already have [object, local] which I think is correct for non-remoting (in-process) COM objects.
Do I need void in the parentheses of my method declarations (like in C) to specify no arguments? MSDN is inconsistent about this; so are header files. My own personal implementations of this interface will be in C.
Thanks.
You are talking about the threading model you want to specify for your COM component. No, you cannot put that in the IDL, it is far too important. A client doesn't have to use your IDL, a scripting language like Javascript never will for example. It must go in the registry, in the CLSID key for your component. You want ThreadingModel = "Apartment" to request the client to provide an STA thread. If it is missing then COM assumes that by default.
Do keep in mind that this does not force the client programmer to provide one. If he favors MTA for some reason then COM will provide the STA thread to give your component as safe home. If your proxy makes it too slow to be usable then you do have a documentation requirement.
No HRESULT Method(void) in the IDL is not necessary, using HRESULT Method() is sufficient. Midl.exe doesn't care what language you use.
I've implemented a windows deskband (using the windows SDK sample) and need a way to communicate (one call to start IPC with another application, IPC is already working) with it.
My COM experience is very limited but extrapolating from what I've seen, I think it should be possible to create a new COM interface, implement it in the deskband object (which I have access to via IBandSite), call QueryInterface() for my own interface on it and then use it to call directly into the deskband.
I've tried this but ran into problems very quickly (main reason being: I've no idea what I'm actually doing most of the time ...)
So, my questions are: Is this a viable approach and can someone give me an outline on how to proceed if it is (or point to some resource that could be helpful - short of reading a COM book, which would be my last approach). If it is not, do alternatives come to mind ?
Thank you for your time and best wishes,
Rene.
Here's you path: you add a new interface into .idl file and also if you have a co-class in the .idl file that corresponds to you COM object you list that new interface in the co-class definition. Then you compile the .idl and this gets you a .h file and a .c file with identifiers - the C++ IID and C++ interface definition.
Then you inherit your COM object C++ class from the C++ interface and implement all methods of it. If for whatever reason you can't or don't want to implement a method you have to return E_NOTIMPL from that method implementation.
One very important final thing: you have to change QueryInterface() behavior in you COM object class. If you use ATL you have to add an entry into the COM map. If you don't use ATL change you QueryInterface() - see this question for how to implement QueryInterface() in case of implementing several COM interfaces.
I have found many references to this term on the web, especially on Microsoft's MSDN website, and even lists of such languages. However, I can't find a definition of this term. (Is it something as simple as a language for which a COM interface has been implemented?)
Please let me know if you know of a link to a definition.
Thanks.
Stripped down to bare essentials, to understand COM you have to understand GUIDs and IUnknown. The equivalent for Automation is ProgIDs and IDispatch.
A ProgID helps you create a COM coclass. A typical ProgID is "Word.Automation", the progid for Microsoft Word. You'll find them listed in the Registry under HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT. A typical name for a helper function in your language is CreateObject(). You pass it the ProgID, optionally a machine name, and you get back an interface reference. Which you can then use to make method calls and get/set properties.
The language runtime uses the IDispatch interface (retrieved with IUnknown::QueryInterface) to discover the names and parameters of the methods that are implemented by the COM server. This is called late-binding, the way any scripting language uses Automation. It has only 4 methods:
IDispatch::GetTypeInfoCount(), returns 1 if the server can provide type info
IDispatch::GetTypeInfo(), returns type information, helpful to make type-safe calls
IDispatch::GetIDsOfNames(), maps an identifier name to a number
IDispatch::Invoke(), calls a numbered method or property getter/setter.
That's all it takes.
In Microsoft Windows applications
programming, OLE Automation (later
renamed by Microsoft to just
Automation,1[2] although the old
term remained in widespread use), is
an inter-process communication
mechanism based on Component Object
Model (COM) that was intended for use
by scripting languages – originally
Visual Basic – but now are used by
languages run on Windows.[3] It
provides an infrastructure whereby
applications called automation
controllers can access and manipulate
(i.e. set properties of or call
methods on) shared automation objects
that are exported by other
applications.
From Wikipedia entry
I know that when you add/change/remove methods in a COM interface you're supposed to change the interface/coclass GUID but what about type libraries. When should you change the type library's GUID? Do you change it if a GUID inside the type library has changed? Or should you only change it when something that doesn't have its own GUID within the type library changes.
The basic principle is that COM interfaces and Type Libraries should be immutable (that is, they shouldn't ever change). If you change one item inside a COM interface, then the new version needs to be a completely separate entity from the previous version. The only way to do this is to change the GUID for every interface in the library and the GUID for the type library itself. It's also a good idea (for your own personal sanity) to change the name of the type library.
Ideally you shouldn't ever change a COM interface. Instead create a new derived COM interface and publish in a new type library.
I've got a similar question.
I had an original control with CLSID_A that implemented interface IID_A in some 1.0 type library with GUID_A
Later on, I decided to add a new interface to the original control. It would then implement both IID_A and IID_B interfaces. I figured that I should probably keep the same CLSID but didn’t knew much what to do with the typelib itself. I was mostly doing VC++ programmatic-by-the-book stuff which involved QueryInterface and didn’t cared much about versioning and typelib. You wanted to create an object with a specific CLSID, you just asked CoCreated instance...and then Queried interface for potential support of the new interface...
Now when I get into fancier environments like LabVIEW or design-time drop-in development environments like Microsoft .NET, MFC stuff that seems to break.
You are mentioning in your answer to change all of the GUID. Is the whole paradigm of adapting an application based on available functionality dead, that a newer application could still use its basic functionality with the older version of a control? Maybe I didn’t catch the later wave that is: No point in adapting an application to run using old control version, it simply requires a specific control version. That would be reason M$ also came out with the ASSEMBLY thing.
Specifically, when you create an interface/implementor pair, and there is no overriding organizational concern (such as the interface should go in a different assembly ie, as recommended by the s# architecture) do you have a default way of organizing them in your namespace/naming scheme?
This is obviously a more opinion based question but I think some people have thought about this more and we can all benefit from their conclusions.
The answer depends on your intentions.
If you intend the consumer of your namespaces to use the interfaces over the concrete implementations, I would recommend having your interfaces in the top-level namespace with the implementations in a child namespace
If the consumer is to use both, have them in the same namespace.
If the interface is for predominantly specialized use, like creating new implementations, consider having them in a child namespace such as Design or ComponentModel.
I'm sure there are other options as well, but as with most namespace issues, it comes down to the use-cases of the project, and the classes and interfaces it contains.
I usually keep the interface in the same namespace of as the concrete types.
But, that's just my opinion, and namespace layout is highly subjective.
Animals
|
| - IAnimal
| - Dog
| - Cat
Plants
|
| - IPlant
| - Cactus
You don't really gain anything by moving one or two types out of the main namespace, but you do add the requirement for one extra using statement.
What I generally do is to create an Interfaces namespace at a high level in my hierarchy and put all interfaces in there (I do not bother to nest other namespaces in there as I would then end up with many namespaces containing only one interface).
Interfaces
|--IAnimal
|--IVegetable
|--IMineral
MineralImplementor
Organisms
|--AnimalImplementor
|--VegetableImplementor
This is just the way that I have done it in the past and I have not had many problems with it, though admittedly it might be confusing to others sitting down with my projects. I am very curious to see what other people do.
I prefer to keep my interfaces and implementation classes in the same namespace. When possible, I give the implementation classes internal visibility and provide a factory (usually in the form of a static factory method that delegates to a worker class, with an internal method that allows a unit tests in a friend assembly to substitute a different worker that produces stubs). Of course, if the concrete class needs to be public--for instance, if it's an abstract base class, then that's fine; I don't see any reason to put an ABC in its own namespace.
On a side note, I strongly dislike the .NET convention of prefacing interface names with the letter 'I.' The thing the (I)Foo interface models is not an ifoo, it's simply a foo. So why can't I just call it Foo? I then name the implementation classes specifically, for example, AbstractFoo, MemoryOptimizedFoo, SimpleFoo, StubFoo etc.
(.Net) I tend to keep interfaces in a separate "common" assembly so I can use that interface in several applications and, more often, in the server components of my apps.
Regarding namespaces, I keep them in BusinessCommon.Interfaces.
I do this to ensure that neither I nor my developers are tempted to reference the implementations directly.
Separate the interfaces in some way (projects in Eclipse, etc) so that it's easy to deploy only the interfaces. This allows you to provide your external API without providing implementations. This allows dependent projects to build with a bare minimum of externals. Obviously this applies more to larger projects, but the concept is good in all cases.
I usually separate them into two separate assemblies. One of the usual reasons for a interface is to have a series of objects look the same to some subsystem of your software. For example I have all my Reports implementing the IReport Interfaces. IReport is used is not only used in printing but for previewing and selecting individual options for each report. Finally I have a collection of IReport to use in dialog where the user selects which reports (and configuring options) they want to print.
The Reports reside in a separate assembly and the IReport, the Preview engine, print engine, report selections reside in their respective core assembly and/or UI assembly.
If you use the Factory Class to return a list of available reports in the report assembly then updating the software with new report becomes merely a matter of copying the new report assembly over the original. You can even use the Reflection API to just scan the list of assemblies for any Report Factories and build your list of Reports that way.
You can apply this techniques to Files as well. My own software runs a metal cutting machine so we use this idea for the shape and fitting libraries we sell alongside our software.
Again the classes implementing a core interface should reside in a separate assembly so you can update that separately from the rest of the software.
I give my own experience that is against other answers.
I tend to put all my interfaces in the package they belongs to. This grants that, if I move a package in another project I have all the thing there must be to run the package without any changes.
For me, any helper functions and operator functions that are part of the functionality of a class should go into the same namespace as that of the class, because they form part of the public API of that namespace.
If you have common implementations that share the same interface in different packages you probably need to refactor your project.
Sometimes I see that there are plenty of interfaces in a project that could be converted in an abstract implementation rather that an interface.
So, ask yourself if you are really modeling a type or a structure.
A good example might be looking at what Microsoft does.
Assembly: System.Runtime.dll
System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable<T>
Where are the concrete types?
Assembly: System.Colleections.dll
System.Collections.Generic.List<T>
System.Collections.Generic.Queue<T>
System.Collections.Generic.Stack<T>
// etc
Assembly: EntityFramework.dll
System.Data.Entity.IDbSet<T>
Concrete Type?
Assembly: EntityFramework.dll
System.Data.Entity.DbSet<T>
Further examples
Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.ILogger<T>
- Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Logger<T>
Microsoft.Extensions.Options.IOptions<T>
- Microsoft.Extensions.Options.OptionsManager<T>
- Microsoft.Extensions.Options.OptionsWrapper<T>
- Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Memory.MemoryCacheOptions
- Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.SqlServer.SqlServerCacheOptions
- Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Redis.RedisCacheOptions
Some very interesting tells here. When the namespace changes to support the interface, the namespace change Caching is also prefixed to the derived type RedisCacheOptions. Additionally, the derived types are in an additional namespace of the implementation.
Memory -> MemoryCacheOptions
SqlServer -> SqlServerCatchOptions
Redis -> RedisCacheOptions
This seems like a fairly easy pattern to follow most of the time. As an example I (since no example was given) the following pattern might emerge:
CarDealership.Entities.Dll
CarDealership.Entities.IPerson
CarDealership.Entities.IVehicle
CarDealership.Entities.Person
CarDealership.Entities.Vehicle
Maybe a technology like Entity Framework prevents you from using the predefined classes. Thus we make our own.
CarDealership.Entities.EntityFramework.Dll
CarDealership.Entities.EntityFramework.Person
CarDealership.Entities.EntityFramework.Vehicle
CarDealership.Entities.EntityFramework.SalesPerson
CarDealership.Entities.EntityFramework.FinancePerson
CarDealership.Entities.EntityFramework.LotVehicle
CarDealership.Entities.EntityFramework.ShuttleVehicle
CarDealership.Entities.EntityFramework.BorrowVehicle
Not that it happens often but may there's a decision to switch technologies for whatever reason and now we have...
CarDealership.Entities.Dapper.Dll
CarDealership.Entities.Dapper.Person
CarDealership.Entities.Dapper.Vehicle
//etc
As long as we're programming to the interfaces we've defined in root Entities (following the Liskov Substitution Principle) down stream code doesn't care where how the Interface was implemented.
More importantly, In My Opinion, creating derived types also means you don't have to consistently include a different namespace because the parent namespace contains the interfaces. I'm not sure I've ever seen a Microsoft example of interfaces stored in child namespaces that are then implement in the parent namespace (almost an Anti-Pattern if you ask me).
I definitely don't recommend segregating your code by type, eg:
MyNamespace.Interfaces
MyNamespace.Enums
MyNameSpace.Classes
MyNamespace.Structs
This doesn't add value to being descriptive. And it's akin to using System Hungarian notation, which is mostly if not now exclusively, frowned upon.
I HATE when I find interfaces and implementations in the same namespace/assembly. Please don't do that, if the project evolves, it's a pain in the ass to refactor.
When I reference an interface, I want to implement it, not to get all its implementations.
What might me be admissible is to put the interface with its dependency class(class that references the interface).
EDIT: #Josh, I juste read the last sentence of mine, it's confusing! of course, both the dependency class and the one that implements it reference the interface. In order to make myself clear I'll give examples :
Acceptable :
Interface + implementation :
namespace A;
Interface IMyInterface
{
void MyMethod();
}
namespace A;
Interface MyDependentClass
{
private IMyInterface inject;
public MyDependentClass(IMyInterface inject)
{
this.inject = inject;
}
public void DoJob()
{
//Bla bla
inject.MyMethod();
}
}
Implementing class:
namespace B;
Interface MyImplementing : IMyInterface
{
public void MyMethod()
{
Console.WriteLine("hello world");
}
}
NOT ACCEPTABLE:
namespace A;
Interface IMyInterface
{
void MyMethod();
}
namespace A;
Interface MyImplementing : IMyInterface
{
public void MyMethod()
{
Console.WriteLine("hello world");
}
}
And please DON'T CREATE a project/garbage for your interfaces ! example : ShittyProject.Interfaces. You've missed the point!
Imagine you created a DLL reserved for your interfaces (200 MB). If you had to add a single interface with two line of codes, your users will have to update 200 MB just for two dumb signaturs!