We Keep Coding

how to explicitly link a cpp/cli file to a c# library .dll?

I have a c++/CLI library that is in turn calling a c# library. That is fine, it is linking implicitly and all is good with the world. But for various reasons the libraries are not getting quite the prefect treatment by our automated build process, and the libraries are not finding each other unless we move the libraries to locations that we would rather not have them in, and would rather not fold into our build process.
It is suggested to me that we/I could write a post-build event that uses XCOPY. but lets say we don't want to do that.
Another suggestion is to explicitly load the dll. Windows says that to link explicitly "Applications must make a function call to explicitly load the DLL at run time." The problem is that Microsoft's example is not enough for my small mind to understand how to proceed with this idea. Worse, the only example I could find is out of date. Perhaps I am not using the right search terms but I am having difficulty finding more about it with google.
How do we explicitly Link a c++/Cli Library to a C# .dll?
----edit
OK, How do we explicitly Link a C++/CLI code, which exports a library using __declspec(), to a C# .dll.

There is no such thing as a "C++/CLI library", only assemblies are supported. There is no explicit or implicit linking, binding always happens at runtime. Assemblies are found at runtime by the CLR, the rules it uses to locate them are described in detail in the MSDN library.
Copying all dependencies into the same directory as the EXE is the sane way to go about it while you are developing the code. Well supported by build system, the C# and C++ rules are however different. C++ projects build to the solution's Debug directory, C# projects build to the EXE project's bin\Debug directory. So yes, altering a C++ project's Output Directory setting or copying files with a post build event is usually required to get everything together.

Referencing a 3rd party assembly which is not located in the root location

I have a Visual Studio 2010 C# project which creates an .exe and this project is using some 3rd party class library.
My project is located in: /MyFramWork/tests/test1
3rd party library is located at: /MyFrameWork/bin/utils/
I am adding the reference to the library by using References->Add Reference->Browse. I can see that in the project file all is fine:
....\bin\utils\log4net.dll
False
I would like to reference the 3rd party library without using the option "Copy Local". However if I don't use the option, the library is not found and I get an exception.
My question is: Is there a way to specify that the 3rd party library should be found at ....\bin\utils. It seems that when the .exe gets build the information from the .csproj gets lost.

By default, .NET apps look for their dependencies in only two places: the EXE directory, and the GAC (Global Assembly Cache).
You have three choices:
You can make sure the dependency gets copied into the same directory as your EXE (this is what Copy Local does). This is the best choice most of the time, which is why it's the default when you reference an assembly that's not already in the GAC.
You can install your dependency into the GAC using gacutil. This might be a good choice if your dependency isn't going to change, is going to be in a different location on every development machine (i.e. if relative paths won't work well), and if you want to use it from many different projects. But it's a major pain if the dependency is still under active development and changing frequently. You'll also need to make sure to put the DLL into the GAC on every computer you deploy your app to.
You can customize the dependency-loading behavior so it looks in other places, as Hans noted in his comment. This is an advanced option and comes with a whole new set of headaches.
Normally, you would just use Copy Local; it's a very sensible default. You should need a fairly compelling reason to do anything different.

Use the <probing> element to specify where the CLR should search for your assemblies. The only restriction is that the assemblies must be located in subdirectories of your application's base directory.
For example, if your application base directory is C:\MyFramework, then you could have your assemblies in C:\MyFramework\bin.
Have a look at this article to learn how the CLR searches for assemblies.

If you need to load assemblies from custom locations, you could try the Assembly.LoadFile Method.
The following links may be useful:
C# - Correct Way to Load Assembly, Find Class and Call Run() Method
http://www.csharp-examples.net/reflection-examples/

It's me Potzon. I am still investigating this incredibly silly problem.
I have been hoping for some elegant solution. I am about to build fairly large framework with lots of assemblies which would be placed inside /Framework/bin/. However I wanted to have some directory structure inside the the directory, for example /bin/utils, /bin/test, /bin/devices/ and so on.
One possible solution that I have found is to define environmental variable DEVPATH (see here http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cskzh7h6.aspx) but it turns out that .net4 is not using this variable when an assembly is run independently (outside the visual studio), or at least this is the case for me - I can't make it work.
It seems that the solution to put all the assemblies inside the /bin directory without using sub-directories is the best. I think I will give up and just do it this way.

Building C# App with Internal DLLs

Is there a way to keep any DLLs needed for my Visual C# program (such as SQLite) inside the actual EXE so it doesn't require the files to be present?
If not, can anyone show me how to make a wrapper for my program (independent of .NET, so maybe C++?) to copy/load required files to the working directory before starting the program itself.
What I intend to end up with is a single EXE file that can be deployed anywhere and set itself up like a transformer. All it requires is the following criteria:
SQLite is present
OpenHardwareMonitorLib is present
.NET 2.0 is installed (if not, offer install with redistributable package)

Microsoft provide a tool for merging DLLs. It's called ILMerge.
It doesn't always work, I believe certain things can cause problems. But it's definitely the easier option!

If the problem is redistribute only one file, you can create a "installer" exe, that unpack all your dependencies (from executable content).
If you don't want to leave all dlls in your production environment, you can merge all IL code in the main executable. you can use ILMerge (but it's not the only product that can do this)

You can merge the dependencies into the main executable. After your build completes you run an additional tool that combines the IL code into a single assembly.
ILMerge can do this but is a bit cumbersome to use.
Some (proprietary) tools can do this as well. I know of at least one obfuscator (DeepSea) that can do this. DeepSea also allows you to specify what you want to include and what types you want to expose from the resulting assembly.
Full disclosure: I know the guys that build DeepSea Obfuscator.

I guess you could embed the target assemblies as resources and then unpack them in some custom assembly resolution code?
Edit: there's an example of this here: Embedding assemblies inside another assembly

How can C# use a legacy DLL simply without registration(regsvr32)

Situation
I run a build system that executes many builds for many project. To avoid one build impacting another we lock down the build user to only its workspace. Builds run as a non privileged users who only have write ability to the workspace.
Challenge
During our new build we need to use a legacy 3rdparty DLL that exposes its interface through COM. The dev team wants to register the build(regsrv32.exe) but our build security regime blocks this activity. If we relax the regime then the 3rdparty DLL will impact other builds and if I have two build which need two different versions I may have the wrong build compile against the wrong version (a very real possibility).
Question
Are there any other options besides registration to handle legacy DLLs which expose their interface via COM?
Thanks for the help
Peter

For my original answer to a similar question see: TFS Build server and COM references - does this work?
A good way to compile .NET code that references COM components without the COM components being registered on the build server is to use the COMFileReference reference item in your project/build files instead of COMReference. A COMFileReference item looks like this:
<ItemGroup>
<COMFileReference Include="MyComLibrary.dll">
<EmbedInteropTypes>True</EmbedInteropTypes>
</COMFileReference>
</ItemGroup>
Since Visual Studio provides no designer support for COMFileReference, you must edit the project/build file by hand.
During a build, MSBuild extracts the type library information from the COM DLL and creates an interop assembly that can be either standalone or embedded in the calling .NET assembly.
Each COMFileReference item can also have a WrapperTool attribute but the default seemed to work for me just fine. The EmbedInteropTypes attribute is not documented as being applicable to COMFileReference, but it seems to work as intended.
See https://learn.microsoft.com/en-ca/visualstudio/msbuild/common-msbuild-project-items#comfilereference for a little more detail. This MSBuild item has been available since .NET 3.5.
It's a shame that no-one seems to know anything about this technique, which to me seems simpler than the alternatives. It's actually not surprising since I could only find just the one above reference to it on-line. I myself discovered this technique by digging into MSBuild's Microsoft.Common.targets file.

There's a walkthrough on registration-free COM here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms973913.aspx
And excruciating detail here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa376414
(the root of that document is actually here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd408052 )
Also, for building in general, you should be able to use Tlbimp or tlbexp to create a TLB file that you can use for building, assuming the point of registering is just to be able to compile successfully, and not to run specific tests.

Installation tools such as Installshield can extract the COM interfaces from the DLLs and add them to the registry. It can also use the self-registration process of the DLL (which I believe is what regsvr does), but this is not a Microsoft installer best practice.

in .NET COM is normally done thru Interop in order to register .DLL in .NET they are called Assemblies and that can be done several ways.. by adding references via VS IDE at the project level, or writing code that Loads and unloads the assembly.. by .Config file that haas the reference to the assembly as well as the using of that reference within the project... GAC.
If you have access to the 3rd party .DLL's you can GAC them, and reference them in your project
you can add a using to your .cs file header as well as add the reference to the project by right clicking on reference --> add Reference ...
you can also do the above step as well as set the copy local = true in the properties for that .dll.. I hope that this gives you some ideas.. keep in mind that .NET assemblies are Managed code so there are several ways to Consume those 3rd party .DLL's using other methods within C# like LoadFromAssembly ect..

Thanks for all the help.
We changed from early-binding to late-binding because we never really needed the DLL at compile time. This pushed the registration requirement from the build server to the integration test server (where we execute the installer which handles the registration). We try to keep the build system pristine and have easy-to-reset integration systems.
Thanks again
Peter

Where do you put your 3rd party libraries?

I've got a bunch of .dll assemblies, such as HtmlAgilityPack and MoreLinq. Where am I supposed to put these files? I usually toss them somewhere in my Projects folder, but then I'm always digging around for them. Is there a standard place to put them?

There's no standard place to put them, but make sure you:
Put them in one place
Include them in source control.
I put all my required dll's in a top level directory in my solution called "Dependencies", parallel to the project folders. I have them in source control such that when new developers check out the solution, it all compiles and works right off. It's the only way to go.
I include only the .dll files absolutely needed. This keeps it light, which is good, but then when I find some other part of MVC Contrib or whatever that I need, I have to go find the unzipped directory, which might not even be on my computer! Others put entire library directories (readme.txt and all) as part of their source control linked to the solution. This ensures you and future developers will have everything they need, but adds a little dead weight. Either is a good strategy.

Having a "Lib" folder at the same level as source projects is a common way.
To be honest, it's not the dependencies my projects have that I find hard to manage, it's the dependencies the dependencies have. I'd just like to mention NHibernate, Castle Windsor and the various Castle Windsor Facilities in particular. Getting all of those to play together on my last project cost me a lot of time.
For open source projects, I also like to have the source code handy because sometimes its useful to debug into the source code. (And sometimes because the documentation is so poor, you have to read the source code to find out how it works). I've seen VS projects arranged so that the project references the DLL yet at the same time, VS knows where to find the source code, as I write I can't quite remember how to do that.
So, a Lib folder for DLLs works for me; I often call it "Shared Dependencies".
As for open-source source code, I don't have a standard way to version that because each project is structured differently and has a different build process. I don't like to tinker with the open-source project structure or build method because then, I take responsibility for it. If for some reason, it won't build, or builds incorrectly, or produces a faulty DLL, the cause would be exceedingly difficult to track down, and I'd have to get deep into troubleshooting all of that which I dont care about at all.

In a folder UNDER your solution directory, e.g. "external" or "library". That way your continuous integration system (or other team members) can do a pull of one root from your source control system and have everything they need.
In SVN, use svn:externals to pull that directory from a different root so you can easily share library DLLS (and library projects) between solutions.

In the office we have a share on the network for referenced asseblies. These could be 3rd party or assemblies of our own that could be shared between projects.
I also, don't like the idea of putting the dll files in source control. If all the developers have access to the share all will work fine.

The visual studio directory in My Documents seems like a logical place to put them. I don't know if it's the best or anything wrong with it but at least all the libraries are found in one place.
%USERPROFILE%\My Documents\Visual Studio XXXX\Libraries

At my company we place all our shared DLL assemblies onto a network drive in a folder called Assemblies. From there, we use SyncToy to mirror changes between that folder and a folder on our local development machines (in my case C:\Assemblies with subfolders for different versions or useful third party assemblies). Using the "Reference Paths" feature of Visual Studio projects makes it very easy to select different assembly versions based only on locations.
For projects at home, I would definitely go with the idea mentioned by Jeff M of placing them in the Visual Studio folder under My Documents.

I don't have a hard and fast rule on the location. However, I would encourage consistency!
For example, I needed to to this for a small tool I'm writing for a client at the moment, so I checked their other code bases in Bitbucket which seemed to use a dependencies folder in the solution folder (alongside the other projects), so I copied that.