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.
Related
I have one VB6 ActiveX DLL that exposes a class INewReport. I added some new methods to this class and I was able to rebuild it and keep binary compatibility.
I have a second DLL that exposes a class clsNewReport, which implements the first class using:
Implements RSInterfaces.INewReport
Since I added new methods to INewReport, I had to also add those new methods to clsNewReport.
However, when I try to compile the second DLL, I get the binary-compatibility error "...class implemented an interface in the version-compatible component, but not in the current project".
I'm not sure what is happening here. Since I'm only adding to the class, why can't I maintain binary compatibility with the second DLL? Is there any way around this?
I think this is a correct explanation of what is happening, and some potential workarounds.
I made up a test case which reproduced the problem in the description and then dumped the IDL using OLEView from the old & new DLL which contained the interface.
Here is a diff of the old (left) and new IDL from INewReport:
Important differences:
The UUID of interface _INewReport has changed
A typedef called INewReport___v0 has been added which refers to the original UUID of the interface
(I assume that this is also what is happening to the code referred to in the question.)
So now in the client project the bincomp DLL refers to the original interface UUID; but that UUID only matches against a different name (INewReport___v0 instead of INewReport) than it did originally. I think this is the reason VB6 thinks there is a bincomp mismatch.
How to fix this problem? I've not been able to do anything in VB6 that would allow you to use the updated interface DLL with the client code without having to break bincomp of the client code.
A (bad) option could be to just change the client DLL to use project compatibility... but that may or may not be acceptable in your circumstances. It could cause whatever uses the client DLL to break unless all the consumers were also recompiled. (And this could potentially cause a cascade of broken bincomp).
A better but more complex option would be to define the interface in IDL itself, use the MIDL compiler to generate a typelib (TLB file), and reference that directly. Then you would have full control over the interface naming, etc. You could use the IDL generated from OLEView as a starting point for doing this.
This second option assumes that the interface class is really truly an interface only and has no functional code in it.
Here's how I setup a case to reproduce this:
Step 1. Original interface definition - class called INewReport set to binary compatible:
Sub ProcA()
End Sub
Sub ProcB()
End Sub
Step 2. Create a test client DLL which implements INewReport, also set to binary compatible:
Implements INewReport
Sub INewReport_ProcA()
End Sub
Sub INewReport_ProcB()
End Sub
Step 3: Add ProcC to INewReport and recompile (which also registers the newly built DLL):
(above code, plus:)
Sub ProcC()
End Sub
Step 4: Try to run or compile the test client DLL - instantly get the OP's error. No need to change any references or anything at all.
I was able to recreate your problem, using something similar to DaveInCaz's code. I tried a number of things to fix it, probably repeating things you've already tried. I came up with a possible hypothesis as to why this is happening. It doesn't fix the problem, but it may throw some additional light on it.
Quoting from This doc page:
To ensure compatibility, Visual Basic places certain restrictions on changes you make to default interfaces. Visual Basic allows you to add new classes, and to enhance the default interface of any existing class by adding properties and methods. Removing classes, properties, or methods, or changing the arguments of existing properties or methods, will cause Visual Basic to issue incompatibility warnings.
Another quote:
The ActiveX rule you must follow to ensure compatibility with multiple interfaces is simple: once an interface is in use, it can never be changed. The interface ID of a standard interface is fixed by the type library that defines the interface.
So, here's a hypothesis. The first quote mentions the default interface, which suggests that it may not be possible to alter custom interfaces in any way. That's suggested by the second quote as well. You're able to alter the interface class, because you are essentially altering its default interface. However, when you attempt to alter the implementing class in kind, to reflect the changes in your interface, your implementation reference is pointing to the older version of the interface, which no longer exists. Of course, the error message doesn't hint at this at all, because it appears to be based on the idea that you didn't attempt to implement the interface.
I haven't been able to prove this, but looking at DaveInCaz's answer, the fact that the UUID has changed seems to bear this idea out.
I'm looking for a clean way to make incremental updates to my code library, without breaking backwards compatibility. This could mean adding new members to classes, or changing existing members to provide additional functionality. Sometimes I am required to change a member in such a way that it would break existing code (e.g. renaming a method or changing its return type), so I'd rather not touch any of my existing types once they are shipped.
The way I currently set this up is through inheritance and polymorphism by creating a new class that extends the previous "version" of that class.
The way this works is by creating the appropriate version of StatusResult (e.g. StatusResultVersion3), based on the actual value of the ProtocolVersion property, and returning it as an instance of CommandResult.
Because .NET does not seem to have a concept of class versioning, I had to come up with my own: appending the version number to the end of the class name. This will no doubt make you cringe. I could easily imagine yourself scratching your eyes out after zooming in on the diagram. But it works. I can add new members and override existing members, without introducing any code breaking changes.
Is there a better way to version my classes?
There are typically two approaches when considering existing code and assembly updates:
Regression Testing
This is a great approach for non-breaking changes, where you can simply overload functions to provide new parameters, etc. Visual Studio has some very advanced unit testing capabilities to make your regression testing relatively easy and automated.
Assembly Versions
If your changes are going to start breaking things, like rewriting the way some utility works, then it's time for a new assembly version. .NET is very good about working with assembly versions. You can deploy the versioned assemblies to different folders so that existing code can continue to reference the old version while new code can take advantage of the features in the new version.
The problem with interfaces is that once published they're largely set in stone. To quote Anders Hejlsburg:
... It's like adding a method to an interface. After you publish an interface, it is for all practical purposes immutable, because any implementation of it might have the methods that you want to add in the next version. So you've got to create a new interface instead.
So you can never just update an interface, you need to create a completely new one. Of course, you can have a single class implement both interfaces so your maintainability effort is fairly low compared with (say) polymorphic classes where your code will become spread out between multiple classes over time.
Multiple Interfaces also allows you to remove methods in a way that classes do not (Sure, you can Deprecate them but that can result in very noisy intellisense after a few iterations)
I personally lean towards having entirely stand-alone versions of the interface in each assembly version.
That is to say...
v 0.1.0.0
interface IExample
{
String DoSomething();
}
v 0.2.0.0
interface IExample
{
void DoSomethingElse();
}
How you implement them behind the scenes is up to you, but most likely it'll be the same classes with slightly different methods doing similar jobs (otherwise, why use the same interface?)
All the old code should be referencing 0.1.x.x and new code will reference 0.2.x.x. About the only issue is when you find (say) a security flaw and the fix needs to be back-ported to an earlier version. This is where a decent VCS comes in (Personal preference is TFS but SVN or anything else which supports branching/merging will do).
Merge the fixes from the 0.2 branch back into the 0.1 branch and then do a recompile to result in (say) 0.1.1.0.
As long as you stick to a process like this:
Major or Minor build will increment if there are any breaking changes (aka signatures will not change on Build/Revision increments)
Use publisher policies if the new Major/Minor version should be used by older programs (equivalent to guaranteeing nothing broke so use the new version anyway)
References in client apps should point at a Major/Minor version but not specify revision/build
This gives you:
A clean codebase without legacy clutter
Allows clients to use the latest version with no code changes if nothing has broken
Prevents clients using newer versions of an assembly which do have breaking changes until they recompile (and, one hopes, update their code as appropriate to take advantage of the new features.)
Allows you to release security patches for previous versions
The OP solved his problem as indicated by this comment:
In the end, I went with the interfaces idea because it allows me to keep multiple versions of a class member in a single class file. When I need to update the class, I'll just add the new interface, shadowing the member that has been changed, and change the return type on some of my methods. This works without breaking backwards compatibility because of polymorphism.
If this is mainly for serialization, This can be achieved in .Net using DataContractSerializers and DataAnnotations. They can deserialize different versions an object into the same object to allow for different versions of the same class to be deserialized, leaving any properties it can't map blank.
I am currently designing the migration of my existing .NET / C# / WinForms project to a platform neutral solution and the most attractive alternative I have seen seems to be wxWidgets especially taking in consideration my familiarity with C++ and with MFC that appears to have a lot in common with it.
After going though the documentation and the sample code I need to clarify the following issue:
Is it a valid assumption that the way to develop a User Control (by C# terminology) in a wx environment is to derive a class from wxPanel , customize it and place it in a wxFrame?
If this is the case what is the wxFrame method to be used to add the wxPanel object to it ?
The only relative method I was able to find was wxWindow::AddChild but the documentation states that is mostly internal to wxWidgets and shouldn't be called by the user code.
To avoid confusion please note that my question is about a User Control and not a Custom Control (which is clearly addressed in the documentation)
I think you have to set the parent window in the constructor of your wxPanel-derived class and pass it to the inherited constructor (cf. wxPanel constructor)
A better solution, though, is to use sizers (see wx Sizers) for layouting.
And yes, imo you're right about wxPanelbeing (roughly) the equivalent of a C# UserControl.
In the day job, I work on a VB6 (I know, but don't mock the afflicted...) application that uses a number of libraries we have written (also in the ever illustrious VB6). One of these supporting libraries had a load of private members exposed via public properties, and I was asked to remove the properties, and promote the private member variables into public fields with the same name as the original properties.
Now, I'm no COM expert, but I was under the impression that each and every exposed item on a class gets it's own GUID. Since we would be going from a situation where each value went from 2 Guids (Property Get and Property Let) to one where they only used the one (the public field), I was expecting this to break binary compatibility - but it seems it hasn't done that.
Can anyone explain why?
No, it hasn't broken compatibility because it hasn't removed the property get and property let methods. It's just that the compiler is now writing them for you.
Isn't this one of the few areas where VB6 is arguably better than .Net?
In .Net public fields behave differently to public properties, and this makes some refactorings difficult and causes confusion.
In VB6 public fields behave exactly like public properties, which is why it's possible to switch without affecting binary compatibility. Behind the scenes, the compiler generates property get and set routines for public fields. In a sense VB6 has automatically implemented properties (now advertised as a "new feature" in VB10)...
I think it's a bit more subtle than that. You get a GUID for the COM interface (not each individual field/method). As I understand it the binary compatibility attempts to work out if the interface your currently compiling is backwards compatible with a reference version of your DLL (assuming you have one) and only changes the GUID if they are not compatible.
I'm therefore also surprised that it has decided removing all the get/set methods is compatible :/
I searched hard, but was unable to grasp the whole idea. Can anyone tell me:
What COM actually is?
How do GUIDs work, and how are they used by COM?
How does COM resolve the issues of different DLL versions.
Or at least, point me to a good article somewhere that explains these concepts?
Thanks!
COM is "Component Object Model". It is one of the first technologies designed to allow "binary reuse" of components... Originally, it was the rewrite of what was, in Microsoft Office circa 1988-1992 time frame, referred to as Dynamic Data Exchange (DDE), a technology designed to allow the various Office applications to talk to one another. The first attempt to rewrite it was called OLE-Automation (Object Linking and Embedding). But when they got done they renamed it to COM.
How it works:
Essentially, before COM, when a client component wanted to use a component (written as a C++ library), it had to be compiled WITH the library, so it could know exactly how many bytes into the compiled binary file to find each method or function call.
With COM, there is a defined mechanism as to how these methods will be structured, and then the compiler produces a separate file (called a type library or an Interface Definition Language (IDL) file, that contains all this function offset data.
Then, as a user of the component, you have to "register" it, which writes all this information (Keyed off of GUIDs) into the OS Registry, where any client app can access it, and by reading the data from the registry, it can know where in the binary file to find each method or class entry point.
Your question is a little large for a full explanation here. A quick high-level introduction to COM can be found in the book Understanding ActiveX and OLE. A more detailed but still introductory introduction is Inside COM. The best book on the subject is Don Box's Essential COM.
A couple of quick answers:
COM is a binary interface standard for objects. It allows various programs to write to interfaces without all having to have been written in the same langauge with the same compiler. There are also related services available.
GUIDs are globally unique numbers that COM uses to identify interfaces.
COM doesn't resolve different DLL version problems. It only allows a single DLL to be registered for each GUID.
COM enables reusable software. Like building blocks, you can create COM objects (or now Assemblies in .NET) to provide functionality to a larger piece of software. I have used COM to provide DB integration for Excel and MS BizTalk. Software like MS BizTalk use COM/Assemblies to extend the processing capabilities of a standard process; you can insert a COM into the message workflow to do more processing than is implemented by Microsoft. COM also allows use of Component Services providing built in object pooling, security, and control interface.
Wikipedia has a good definition of GUID. Note that Microsoft has a formatting that is not necessarly used in the rest of development community.
COM by itself does not resolve DLL version issues. It enables you to extend software incrementally if you use the COM versioning capability. So if you have an application that uses a COM to convert XML to Text (for example) and you want to enhance, you can create a new version (2.0) which you can roll-out slowly as you update the source application to use the new COM. This way you could (if need be) have a switch statement that can still use the old COM if required by system limitations, or use the new one (they would be different DLLs).
COM is a lot of different things. I recommend Don Box's book, Essential COM as a good way to learn.
At a bare minimum, a COM object is an object that exposes a single interface, IUnknown. This interface has 3 methods, AddRef, Release, and QueryInterface. AddRef/Release enables the object to be reference counted, and automatically deleted when the last reference is released. QueryInterface allows you to interrogate the object for other interfaces it supports.
Most COM objects are discoverable. They are registered in the registry under HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT with an identifying GUID, called a CLSID (class ID). This enables you to call CoCreateInstance to create an instance of a registered object if you know a GUID. You can also query the registry via a COM API for the CLSID that backs a ProgId (program id), which is a string that identifies the object.
Many COM objects have typelibs that specify the interfaces and methods the object supports, as well as IDispatch which has a method, Invoke, that allows you to dynamically call methods on the object. This enables the object to be used from scripting languages that don't support strong typing.
Some objects support being run in a different process, on a different thread, or on a different machine. COM supports marshalling for these types of objects. If possible, a standard marshaller can use the object's typelib to marshal calls to the object, but custom marshallers can be provided as well.
And there's a whole lot more to COM objects, I'm barely scratching the surface.
10,000 foot view:
COM is the communication mechanism for software components. Example, you can interact with COM interfaces (COM interop in .NET) to use functionality not exposed through a common interface (.NET assembly).
GUIDs are explained fairly decent on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globally_Unique_Identifier
I always understood LIB files to be object files for the C++ linker. They contain the code for all objects in a cpp file. The compiler optimizes when it links disregarding portions of the object file that it doesn't need.
Someone please clarify as I am sure I butchered some of this.
COM is Microsoft's Component Object Model, a binary-compatible interface for programs written in various languages to interoperate with each other. It is the "evolutionary step" between the OLE and .NET technologies.
If you want to learn about COM from the C++ perspective, take a look at Don Box's Essential COM, or ATL Internals by Rector and Sells.
The group microsoft.public.vc.atl is probably the best place to ask questions you can't get answers for here. It's primarily an ATL newsgroup, but it seems to be the newsgroup with the most traffic for general COM questions as well. (just be prepared for the usual newsgroup curtness & impatience)
COM is a method to develop software components, small binary exe, that provides services for applications, OS and other components. Developing custom COM comnponent is like developing Object oriented API. GUID is a Global unique ID and used to identify a COM component uniquely.
You can refer a very good book by Dale Rogerson for more details. Inside COM