Background Information
I have taken ownership of 3 websites that share a number of internal assemblies, they each connect to a WCF Service hosted in IIS for basic CRUD type operations.
A couple of different developers could be working on each website at any one time, making changes/additions to the code that is used in the shared assemblies.
The Issue
Each developer then builds their code and ensure that their website is working correctly. However they are unaware that in changing the shared code they could have affected the functionality in the other websites.
To resolve this, I could build each shared assembly separately, copy the dll to a directory specific to each website and add a reference from there.
However this flags up a couple of issues:
This means constantly building the shared assembly and manually copying the dll to the directory it is required in.
When a developer gets the latest source code for the shared assembly, they get the changes any way.
I have thought about managing this using nuget packages, but this only really addresses issue #1 to make it slightly easier to manage specific versions.
I hope this makes sense...
Does anyone else have any advice/tips?
There's no real magic bullet to this one.
Either the developers have to take some responsibility for ensuring changes to shared assemblies don't impact other code that references those assemblies or you really shouldn't be sharing them across projects. If the things they're changing in these shared assemblies really happens that often, you might consider migrating those parts or the methods they're changing to each individual project. Sharing assemblies like this should really only be done for absolute core functions that should change very, very infrequently.
Related
I'm looking for options to share more code between my products. I have about ten products (built in C#) and most of them need a Logging, Licensing and Common project. Right now I copy the projects and rename them, so most code gets duplicated now. I prefer to reuse that code so I can reference a few common packages.
The hard things are:
The products run as add-ins within SolidWorks, so all products run in a single process. SolidWorks has issues with running add-ins in a separate appdomain so we can only load each DLL once.
We ship the installer to the user, so I obfuscate the projects first. Most classes are marked internal and most projects use the InternalsVisibleTo attribute. Only the classes SolidWorks needs to instantiate are marked public.
Users can run multiple products, which may not use the same DLL version. So we need strong-name signing.
Solutions I have considered:
Creating NuGet packages for internal use. Great because you can release versions and update each product at its own pace. I would need to mark most classes as public, which makes obfuscation a lot less effective. Certainly for the licensing project.
Using git submodules. This would let you reference a shared project. Allows for full obfuscation at build time. But since the project name, the non-obfuscated content and the DLL name would be the same, the obfuscated content will not. This will cause conflicts between non-identical versions.
Any ideas on how to solve this?
When I need to add a reference towards a library, I've always been told to use the "add existing project" method, and referencing the project itself inside my solution.
But here in my new company, the use another method. They have a server which holds the compiled dll's, and keep versions of them so they can reference older versions when a change is too important to refactor older apps.
While I find this system really complicated (I guess there is a lot of work if a program pointing an older version of the dll is updated and needs some changes in this dll), they seem to find it pretty convenient.
What are the best practices for this? Linking the dll directly? Linking the project? And why? Any information is welcome!
Thanks in advance !
I usually take a copy of the compiled dll (if the source project is not available or if I don't need the source) and put it in a folder inside my solution, and then reference that. I check it in to source control along with my project.
I am of the opinion that you should be able to check out a project and build it directly from source control without having to go hunting dlls etc.
The Add existing project method is useful when you want to reference a library project which is develop side by side and you want to test/use it's types and methods and this (Add existing project) method will not be used to add the reference of pre-compiled (dll) files.
Read Project Reference (MSDN) article.
You would include it as a Project when you want to simultaneously work on the library. And that would happen mostly for small(ish) libs that will be distributed with your program (bin folder).
When an assembly is (going to be) installed in the GAC, and thus has its own release cycle, it makes more sense to reference the binary only.
Several combination of the above are possible too.
Adding Compiled dlls is mainly when the code is more or less locked (Architecture level code ) which you hardly ever changes
eg
1) communication layer(remoting/wcf)
2) Generic Gui layer (Wizards/dialog boxes)
3) Security layer (azman stuff)
you only need to change when your product is going to another direction say it uses to use .net remoting as communication now it will be using WCF
Using projects as reference when you are frequently changes referenced projects
also Visual studio works out nicely order of building the projects.
Although your company's approach is probably not very common among Microsoft developers, it is used rather successfully in the Java world. In the long run it is probably better controlled than any alternative, but without a fair amount of support scripts/programs (which, for instance, update projects/solutions automatically when needed) it can easily become unmanageable. In the Java world it is directly supported by tools such as Maven.
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.
Is it necessary to register a compiled DLL (written in C# .NET) on a target machine.
The target machine will have .NET installed, is it enough to simply drop the DLL onto the target machine?
I think you're confusing things a little. Registering a dll has never been needed in order to use it.
Using a dll requires only to load it (given a known location or if the library is in the system path) and get the address of the function you wanted to use.
Registering the dll was used when distributing COM or ActiveX objects which need to add certain entries to the windows registry. In order to use a COM service (for example) you need to reference a GUID — that is, a unique identifier — which allows you to get a handle to the dll that implements the service (or provide access to it). Sometimes you can make reference to a fully-qualified name and get the same results.
In order for all that to work the dll needed to be registered. This "registration" process just creates several entries in the registry, but mainly these two: one associating a GUID with the location of the dll (so that you can reference it through the GUID without knowing where is it exactly located) and a second one associating the full name with the GUID. But again, this is just for COM or ActiveX objects.
When you develop an application in .NET, the libraries referenced on your project are automatically loaded when they're needed without you having to worry about locating or loading them. In order to to that, the framework checks two locations for the referenced libraries.
The first location is the application path.
The second location is the GAC.
The GAC (Global Assembly Cache) allows you to effectively register a dll to be used throughout the system and works as an evolution of the old registering mechanism.
So basically you just need to put the dll in the same folder of the application.
You need to "drop" it into a directory where the application needing it will find it.
If there are multiple applications, or you want to "drop" the file somewhere other than the application directory, you generally need to either adjust the PATH variable, or register the assembly in the Global Assembly Cache (GAC).
It is usually enough to drop the dll into the folder of your app on the target machine.
If the dll must be available to other applications then you may want to consider the GAC.
If you wish to access the assembly via com+. An example would be using a type defined in a .NET assembly from a non .NET application, such as a VB6 winforms app.
If you plan on accessing the assembly from another .NET application, you don't have to do anything. If your assembly has a strong name, it probably is a good idea to drop it in the GAC. Otherwise, just drop it in the directory of the application that will be referencing it.
One of the great selling points of .NET for the Windows platform when it came onto the scene is that by default, .NET assembly DLLs don't have to be registered and can be consumed privately by an application by merely putting them in the same folder as the EXE file. That was a great stride forward because it enabled developers to avoid the fray of DLL/COM hell.
Shared DLL/COM modules proved to be one of the greatest design mistakes of Windows as it lead to instability of applications that users installed. Installing a new app could well screw up an app that had been working just fine - because the new app introduced newer versions of shared DLL/COM modules. (It proved in practice to be too much of a burden for developers to properly manage fine-grained version dependencies.)
It's one thing to manage versions of modules with a build repository system like Maven. Maven works extremely well doing what it does.
It's an entirely different matter, though, to deal with that problem in an end-user runtime environment spread across a population of millions of users.
The .NET GAC is by no means a sufficient solution to this age-old Windows problem.
Privately consumed DLL assemblies continue to be infinitely preferable. It's a no-brainer way to go as diskspace is extremely cheap these days (~$100 can by a terabyte drive at Fry's these days). There is nothing to be gained with sharing assemblies with other products - and yet company reputation to loose when things go south for the poor user.
Actually there is NO need to register a dll in .NET on the target machine.
If you reference a .dll in your application, click on the referenced .dll under references in your project, look at the properties and set Isolated to TRUE.
This will now automatically include this .dll in your project and your application will use the copy of the .dll included in your project without any need to register it on the target system.
To see a working Example of this look here:
http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/SEHE
The .dll in question will need to be registered on the system where you build your application for this to work properly. However once you build your project, there will not be any need to register the .dll in question on any system you deploy your application or program.
An additional benefit of using this method, is that even if in the future, another .dll is registered with the same name on the target system in question, your project will continue to use the .dll you deployed with. This is very handy where a .dll has many versions and you wish to maintain some stability, like using the one you tested with, yet all other applications will use the registered .dll unless they use the isolated = true method as well.
The example above is one of those cases, there are many versions of Skype4COM which is a Skype API .dll and can change often.
This method allows the above example to use the API .dll that the project was tested with, each time a user installs a new version of Skype, it is possible that a modified version of this .dll is installed.
Also, there are some Skype clients that do not install this .dll, the business version of the Skype client for example, is smaller, and does not include this .dll, so in this case, the project does not fail on that .dll missing and not being registered because it is included in the project as isolated = true.
An application can use a .NET dll by simply having it present in the same folder with the application.
However if you want other third-party applications to find the DLL and use it they would also have to include it in their distribution. This may not be desirable.
An alternative is to have the DLL registered in the GAC (Global Assembly Cache).
A lot of my projects contain the Castle/NHibernate/Rhino-Tools stack. What's confusing about this is that Castle depends on some NHibernate libraries, NHibernate depends on some Castle libraries, and Rhino-Tools depends on both.
I've built all three projects on my machine, but I feel that copying the NHibernate/Castle libraries is a bit redundant since I built Rhino-Tools using the resulting libraries from my NHibernate and Castle builds.
Right now, I include all projects in seperate folders in my /thirdparty/libs folder in my project tree. Should I simply just have /thirdparty/libs/rhino-tools in my project and use the Castle/NHibernate libs from there? That would seem to make logical sense in not duplicating files, but I also like having each project in it's own distinct folder.
What are your views on this?
This is one of the problems that we're trying to tackle in the Refix open source project on CodePlex.
The idea is that Refix will parse all the projects in your solution, and before your project compiles, copy the necessary binaries from a single local repository on your machine into a folder within the solution tree and point the projects at them. This way, there's no need to commit the binaries. Your local Refix repository will pull binaries from a remote one (we're setting one up at repo.refixcentral.com), and you can set up an intermediate one for your team/department/company that can hold any additional software not held centrally.
It will also try to resolve conflicting version numbers - Visual Studio can be too forgiving of mismatched component version numbers, leading to solutions that compile but fall over at run time when they fail to load a dependency because two different versions would be needed.
So to answer the question "how do you package external libraries in your .Net projects", our vision is that you don't - you just include a Refix step in your build script, and let it worry about it for you.
I use a folder for each, which seems to be the convention.
Does it really make a difference if you're copying them?
What if you want to switch one out? Let's say you go with a new O/R mapper. It will be much easier to just delete the NHibernate folder than to selectively delete DLLs in your Rhino-Tools folder.
Take this to it's logical conclusion and you won't have any folder organization in your lib folder since everything uses log4net :)
Add additional probing paths to your app.config files to locate the dependency dlls. This way your can get away with having just one copy of everything you want. Though there are some quirks to using this feature (you must create the folder structure in a certain way). Look here for more details on the tag.
I will definetly recommend having a thirdparty or vendor folder in each of your project trees. If you find it annoying to have 32 copies of the rhino-tools package, you can have a single copy of it in your code repository, and do external references to it in your project tree.
Lets say you are using SVN, you can make a repository called "thirdparty libs" and in this have versioned copies of the libs. You then make an external property on your "thirdparty"-folder in your project tree which then in turn automaticly will do a check out of your centralized thirdparty libs. This way you for instance only have to update in one place if a security or a bugfix comes out, but each project is still in command of choosing which thirdparty libs, and which versions to use.
About the deps internally in thirdparty libs, i wouldn't mind those. The first time you compile your project, and some of the libs arent copied to your bin-folder because of implicit dependencies you can add an external attribute into your bin-folder, which will then automaticly check out the missing libs. That way you still only have to update your thirdparty libs in one place.