We have a moderate size (40-odd function) C API that needs to be called from a C# project. The functions logically break up to form a few classes that will comprise the API presented to the rest of the project.
Are there any objective reasons to prefer P/Invoke or C++/CLI for the interoperability underneath that API, in terms of robustness, maintainability, deployment, ...?
The issues I could think of that might be, but aren't problematic are:
C++/CLI will require a separate assembly; the P/Invoke classes can be in the main assembly. (We've already got multiple assemblies, and there'll be the C DLLs anyway, so not a major issue.)
Performance doesn't seem to differ noticeably between the two methods.
Issues that I'm not sure about are:
My feeling is C++/CLI will be easier to debug if there's an interop problem; is this true?
Language familiarity - enough people know C# and C++, but knowledge of details of C++/CLI are rarer here.
Anything else?
In the case where I am working with an existing C library, I prefer PInvoke. PInvoke, while a bit tedious and troublesome at times, is a fairly well understood technology that has an ever growing set of tools and internet documentation available. Generally speaking, whatever problem you run into, there is already a sample available on the web, or a quick check on stack overflow will provide a solution.
C++/CLI is a great technology, but IMHO its documentation is limited as compared to PInvoke for interop specific scenarios. It also doesn't have the tooling infrastructure for interop solutions that PInvoke has. Adding a C++/CLI assembly for a scenario that can be solved with PInvoke just seems too costly to me.
On the other hand, if I'm working with a large C++ library, I consider C++/CLI a bit more. PInvoke does not work with C++, and I must end up adding some kind of intermediate layer. Either a small C layer to wrap all of the C++ function calls or a C++/CLI library to bridge the gap. C++/CLI feels a bit more natural to me in this case.
It depends in large part how memory ownership is handled. P/invoke can marshal pointers only when memory management is one of a couple particular ways, usually caller-allocated buffers. If your API returns pointers (via return value or out parameter, doesn't matter) and expects them to be handed back to a destruction function later... p/invoke will either do the automatic marshaling or give you direct access to the pointer value you need to send back later, never both. So C++/CLI becomes a very desirable approach in that case.
Think of P/Invoke as platform invocation, are you calling into something like the Win32 API which is very P/Invoke friendly or do you need to provide .NET bindings for an unmanaged library?
Since the wrapper typically is very thin a C++/CLI wrapper doesn't necessitate that you know C++/CLI specifically. What you need to know can be found in the language specification, it's an extensive documentation with lots of examples. P/Invoke is more of an nice to have feature for smaller well established existing libraries, but if the interface for calling into that library changes you'll run into a problem. With C++/CLI you can still have a public managed interface in your C++/CLI project that's exposed for managed code and handle changes to the C API more easily that way.
If you wanna get rid of the extra DLL you can always try ILMerge, but I'm not sure if it's capable of handling mixed assemblies, (apparently not), but it looks like it's possible to link both managed and unmanaged *.obj files with the PlatformSDK linker like this:
cl.exe /MD /c /clr Unmanaged.cpp
csc.exe /target:module /addmodule:*.obj Managed.cs
link.exe /DLL /LTCG /NOENTRY /CLRIMAGETYPE:IJW *.obj Managed.netmodule
C++/CLI will be easier to debug if you have personnel who know how to debug C++. If you don't, it could potentially be much harder.
I would suggest that the tradeoff here is between ease of use for the consumers of your interop assembly versus ease of maintainability for the assembly itself. If you have a solid core of senior engineers who are familiar with C++ and who can reliably maintain the assembly, it will be much easier on the rest of your team who are unfamiliar with native code to give them a fully managed interface that takes care of everything for them.
On the other hand, if you're the only person in the shop with C++ experience, I would be very leery of embedding a C++ module into the project, in case someone else has to maintain it later.
For an API of this size (~40 total entry points), I would draw the dividing line between C++/CLI and P/Invoke based on how much "header file gunk" you must duplicate in C#. If it's a small (to modest) amount, P/Invoke is fine. Once you start duplicating a lot of .H files in C#—especially for things that aren't exposed in your .NET API—you might be better off using C++/CLI.
Lots of good answers here - another perspective is the plan for the existing C API.
Arguments for using PInvoke include:
You need to keep a C API around for
compatibility with other C consumers
You need to keep the code in C as
it's large and migration is too
expensive
Arguments for using C++/CLI include:
you want to move as much of the code as possible to the CLR
In this case you can start with C++/CLI and then move more and more over to C#
Related
this might be a simple question, but as I have zero experience in C++ and my boss has given me a C++ solution work with I need to ask this question.
I have a C++ solution that needs to be turned into a .NET class library which can then be used in another .NET solution done in C#.
Is this even possible???
Cheers
You have to wrap all C++ classes that should be visible in .NET in C++/CLI classes.
Read this
There are also some automated tools to do this, but I never used these (I don't really trust them). Depends on how many C++ classes do you have, and how complex they are. Writing the wrappers is mostly straight-forward once you get used to some oddities of C++/CLI.
It depends of the output of the C++ solution. Is it an application (*.exe) or a library (*.dll)?
If it is a library (*.dll) you can use Platform Invoke Tutorial to call its functions out of managed code. A lot of examples of calling Win32 native functions can be found at http://pinvoke.net/.
If your result is an application it could be possible, that it has a COM interface. In that case you could use the COM interop to communicate with your application.
Last but not least you could write with C++/CLI a managed wrapper around your C++ functionality. But this is a lot of work and has many pitfalls.
I was wondering if I can use a library -written in C++- in C#
The problem is that library has its own structures and classes..
Will I be able to use it in C#?
Thanks
EDIT This library is open source..
so if my requirements needs something special in C++ code, I will be able do it...
You cannot directly use C++ classes in managed code. The chief problems are not being able to use the same memory allocator as used by the C++ code and not being able to invoke the constructor and destructor easily. A Microsoft employee posted a blog post to show that it is not impossible. I would not recommend doing this.
COM is a solution but that invariably requires a fairly big rewrite and good COM programming skillz. A managed class wrapper in the C++/CLI language is usually the best solution. You could take a peek at the SWIG tool to consider auto-generating those wrapper classes. Beware however that this tool can easily create more problems than it solves.
There are two ways, both using an Adapter (which maps C++ classes to .NET classes):
C++/CLI
COM
The former avoids going via COM, and much of the C++ code might be able to be just compiled with the correct switches.
Additional: In theory P/Invoke might be possible, but all the C++ semantics would be lost, you would need to handle C++ object lifetime manually (and instance references as IntPtr). Plus of course you would need to call the mangled names...
Another option is to write a managed wrapper in C++/CLI. I prefer that instead of using P/Invoke.
What are the advantages (the list of possible disadvantages is lenghtly) of doing 100% managed development using C++/CLI (that is, compile with /clr:safe which "generates ... assemblies, like those written in ... C#")? Especially when compard to C# (note C++/CLI : Advantages over C# and Is there any advantage to using C++/CLI over either standard C++ or C#? are mostly about managed/unmanaged interop).
For example, here are a few off the top of my head:
C++-style references for managed types, not as elegant as full blown non-nullable references but better than nothing or using a work-around.
templates which are more powerful than generics
preprocessor (this may be a disadvantage!, but macros can be useful for code generation)
stack semantics for reference types--automatically calling IDisposable::Dispose()
easier implementation of Dispose() via C++ destructor
C# 3.0 added auto-implemented properties, so that is no longer a C++/CLI advantage.
I would think that the single biggest advantage is the managed/unmanaged interop. Writing pure managed C++/CLI would (to me at least) without interoping with C# or other .Net languages seems like missing the point entirely. Yeah you could do this, but why would you.
If you're going to write pure managed code why not use C#. Especially (like nobugs said) if VS2010 drops IntelliSense support for C++/CLI. Also in VS2008 the IntelliSense for C++/CLI isn't as good the C# IntelliSense; so from a developer standpoint, it's easier to work/explore/refactor in C# than C++/CLI.
If you want some of the C++ benefits you list like the preprocessor, stack semantics and templates, then why not use C++?
Odd, I like C++/CLI but you listed exactly its features I dislike. My criticisms:
Okay. But accidental use of the hat is pretty widespread, getting the value of the value type boxed without warning. There is no way to diagnose this mistake.
Power that comes at a high price, templates you write are not usable in any other .NET language. If anything, it worsens the C++ template export problem. The complete failure of STL/CLR is worth pondering too.
Erm, no.
This was IMO a serious mistake. It already is difficult to avoid problems with accidental boxing, as outlined in the first bullet. Stack semantics makes it seriously difficult for any starting programmer to sort this out. This was a design decision to placate C++ programmers, that's okay, but the using statement was a better solution.
Not sure how it is easier. The GC.SuppressFinalize() call is automatic, that's all. It is very rare for anybody to write a finalizer, but you can't avoid the auto-generated code from making the call. That's inefficient and a violation of the 'you don't pay for what you don't use' principle. Add to this that writing the destructor also forces a default finalizer to be auto-generated. One you'd never use and wouldn't want to be used if you forgot or omitted to use the destructor.
Well, that's all very subjective perhaps. The death-knell will come with VS2010, it will ship without IntelliSense support for C++/CLI.
In C++/CLI you can define functions outside of classes, you can't do that in C#. But I don't know if that is an advantage
Like others here, I can't think of any general cases where a clear advantage exists, so my thinking turned to situational advantages -- are there any cases where there is an advantage in a particular scenario?
Advantage: Leverage the C++ skill set of technical staff in a rapid prototyping scenario.
Let me elaborate ...
I have worked quite a bit with scientists and (non-software) engineers who aren't formally trained programmers. Many of these people use C++ for developing specific modules involving high-end physics/mathematics. If a pure .NET module is required in a rapid prototyping scenario and the skill set of the scientist/engineer responsible for the module is C++, I would teach them a small amount of additional syntax (public ref, ^ and % and gcnew) and get them to program up their module as a 100% managed C++/CLI DLL.
I recognize there are a whole heap of possible "Yes, but ..." responses, but I think leveraging the C++ skill set of technical staff is a possible advantage of C++/CLI.
I agree on what you have mentioned and as an example of preprocessor use point to: Boost Preprocessor library for generating a set of types based on a list of basic types e.g. PointI32, PointF32 etc. in C++/CLI
You can have enums and delegates as generic constraints in C++/CLI, but not in C#.
https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/386194/allow-enum-as-generic-constraint-in-c
There is a library to simulate these constraints in C#.
http://code.google.com/p/unconstrained-melody/
One could imagine the following requirements for a hypothetical product:
Quick time-to-market on Windows
Eventual deploy to non-Windows platforms
Must not rely on Mono for non-Windows
In such a scenario, using eg C# for 1 would stymie you on 2 and 3 without a rewrite. So, one could develop in C++/CLI, suitably munged with macros and template shenanigans to look as much like ordinary C++ as possible, to hit reqt 1, then to hit reqt 2 one would need to (a) reimplement said macros and template shenanigans to map to pukka C++ and (b) implement .NET framework classes used in pukka C++. Note that (a) and (b) could be reused in future once done once.
The most obvious objection would be "well why not do the whole thing in native C++ then?"; well maybe there's lots of good stuff in the vast .NET class library that you want to use to get to market asap.
All a bit tenuous I admit, so I very much doubt this has ever been done, but it'd be a fun thing to try out !
I'm pretty familiar with C++, so I considered learning .NET and all its derivatives (especially C#).
Along the way I bumped into C++/CLI, and I want to know if there is any specific use for that language? Is it just suppose to be a intermediate language for transforming from native C++ to C#?
Another question that popped to my head is why are there still so many programming languages in .NET framework? (VB, C++/CLI, C#...)
Yes, C++/CLI has a very specific target usage, the language (and its compiler, most of all) makes it very easy to write code that needs to interop with unmanaged code. It has built-in support for marshaling between managed and unmanaged types. It used to be called IJW (It Just Works), nowadays called C++ Interop. Other languages need to use the P/Invoke marshaller which can be inefficient and has limited capabilities compared to what C++/CLI can do.
If you need to interop with native C++, classes that have instance functions and need the new and delete keywords to create/destroy an instance of the class then you have no choice but use C++/CLI. Pinvoke cannot do that, only the C++ compiler knows how much memory to allocate and how to correctly thunk the this pointer for an instance function.
The .NET framework contains code that was written in C++/CLI, notably in System.Data and WPF's PresentationCore. If you don't have unmanaged interop needs or don't have to work with a legacy code base then there are few reasons to select C++/CLI. C# or VB.NET are the better choices. C++/CLI's feature set got frozen around 2005, it has no support for more recent additions like lambdas or Linq syntax. Nor does the IDE support many of the bells and whistles available in the C# and VB.NET IDEs. Notable is that VS2010 will initially ship without IntelliSense support for C++/CLI. A bit of a kiss-of-death there.
UPDATE: revived in VS2012, IntelliSense support is back. Not in the least thanks to C++/CX, a language extension that simplifies writing WinRT apps in C++. Its syntax is very similar to C++/CLI. The Windows Forms project templates were removed, the designer however still works. The new debugging engine in VS2012 doesn't support C++/CLI, you have to turn on the "Managed Compatibility Mode" option in Tools + Options, Debugging, General.
First C# is not a 'derivitive' of .NET. .NET is not a language, it is an application framework and class library based on the CLR, for which a number of languages exist.
That said, the most compelling reason to use .NET is that it is a well designed class library and a much easier way to develop for Windows than Win32 or MFC. However I personally decided that I'd rather learn a new language altogether than learn extensions to an old one, and because C# was designed from the ground up to work with .NET, I suggest that is the language of choice for .NET.
C++/CLI is useful is you want to use .NET with some legacy code, and I have used it for creating Windows Forms GUIs and gluing them to existing application code. Its other raison d'etre is that it is the only .NET language that supports mixed managed and native code in a single load module, so it is good for both performance and reuse of legacy code.
With respect to the number of languages, Microsoft want every Windows application to be based on .NET because it is better for the security and stability of their OS. The only way that will happen is by supporting multiple languages. Think of .NET as an application platform or OS API, and then the question makes less sense; there will be many languages for .NET for the same reason as there are many languages for any platform. Those reasons are many, including commercial advantage, application fit, politics, supporting existing developers, choice and no doubt more.
Microsoft has changed its stance on this a few times. It was originally intended as a full-fledged language, essentially something that they wanted all native developers to move to, abandoning native C++ as much as possible.
Then a few years ago, they realized that this simply wasn't what their customers wanted. Developers who are moving to .NET anyway generally jump to a language like C#, and the rest have reasons to keep their code in the native world, so they stay with C++.
So now, Microsoft intends for C++/CLI to be a "bridge" between native C++ code and managed code written in some .NET language. It's no longer a language they recommend you switching your entire codebase to.
It's indeed mainly intended as intermediate language to easily link .net code with native, unmanaged C++. Do yourself a favour, don't use it if you don't need to. C++/CLI syntax is a mess.
Regarding your second question ... I think today C# is the dominant language in .net, but not everyone likes its style and paradigms. .net's architecture makes adding new languages easy (see F#, which aims at functional programming).
I've used C++/CLI to create .NET API's for some unmanaged C++ libraries. Passing and marshalling of parameters takes some getting used to (depending on used types), but once you've got the hang of it, it's really a nice way to bridge the gap between the managed and unmanaged world.
I have not looked at C++/CLI but it harnesses the .NET world - think of it as a in-between C++ and C# where you have the best of both worlds. It could be useful in situations where you want to use C++ that can easily access .NET objects and it's core BCL. Have a look here at this article discussing the primers of C++/CLI. Unfortunately, I have not heard of a Managed C++ application as it has ruffled a lot of C++ friends on the syntax side of things and lost gathering of followers who went back to the unmanaged world of C++.
Hope this helps,
Best regards,
Tom.
for me, i have to use it when there is no other way to reuse c++ class
This post is old but the most important message in my oppinion is missing: You use it for being able to see and manipulate the source code of C++ frameworks you use in C#. Examples: You don't use compiled OpenCV binaries, instead you got the OpenCV sourcecode in your solution and can add simple some Extensions, or deep check how some behavior exists. Or in finanicial math you could QuantLib Sources, and so on. This is much better than having already compield libraries that act as black boxes in a lot of ways. C++/Cli in .NET solves this.
Just so you know. Unless you specify the code to be compiled as unmanaged, when compiling with CLR support it will be compiled as managed code.
While CLI C++ is nice. I find it a pain to code in. There is just something about it that makes me not want to program in it. It isn't even the "^". It is like using a broken .net. I spent 40 minutes coding something fully managed in it that took me 10 minutes in C#. I mean, sometimes I just give up and use C# because it frustrates me when coding in it. I mean if you are going to use .net you might as well use C#(over CLI C++).
Is there a best practice for accessing C++ native COM functions to interop from C#?
For example, if I have 100 C++ methods (basically a native library) that interacts with a core window component.
I want to basically make a wrapper for these C++ methods in C#, so all my newly hired employees can use that instead of C++, etc. The C++ code is legacy and scares me, so I want to deal with it just once. Is the approach here for each method to have a corresponding C# method? In fact, is there another way of doing this?
Can I have some sort of wrapper subsystem. How do you people generally do this?
Also, are there any performance considerations, etc.?
If your C++ methods are in a COM object, then you can use COM interop from C#. See CLR Inside Out: Introduction to COM Interop for a good introduction.
If those C++ methods are more like traditional API calls, then you'll want to use Platform Invoke (i.e. PInvoke). That entails creating managed prototypes in C# for the unmanaged (C++ functions). A good place to start is the Platform Invoke Tutorial.
As far as performance considerations go, there typically won't be much to worry about. Calling from C# might be fractionally slower than calling directly from C++, in large part due to marshaling data. Unless the code you're calling is in a critical loop, you're not going to notice any difference.
It really depends on what those native functions do. The more you have to share data between the unmanaged and managed worlds, the more difficult the process becomes. Without more information about your specific functions, it's difficult to say where you might encounter problems.
Use COM Interop to wrap the library. Then you can more or less treat the C++ code as .NET native code that can be called in the normal fashion.