|
As with the post below, you need Mono[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Okay.. But MoNo is not working at industrial Level.This is not much string!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
If Mono isn't as mature as you need it to be then you might want to consider converting your code to a language that doesn't run on the .Net platform. C++ is probably the most universal Linux language, and is also probably one of the easier languages to port C# code to.
|
|
|
|
|
Okay!!! will see..Thank you Very much>>>>
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
I'm trying to get the regfree functionality working in VS2005, C# but am only
able to get it working with executables. However I need to implement this
within a webservice but this does not seem to work.
Within the webservice project I add a reference to a com dll
(simple test dll written in vb6) and set the isolated property to true.
When I then build the solution the Native.Webservice1.manifest file is generated
correctly.
But as soon as I deploy the webservice to IIS and try to run it I get an error
telling me the comm classid cannot be found. When the dll is registered this error
disappears. Apparently the manifest file is not used.
Somewhere I'm missing something, do I have to do something extra within my solution to
get this working or does it only work for executables and is the only solution back to
dll hell? in case of web projects?
Thanks in advance,
Markuseon
|
|
|
|
|
In the case of COM dlls they have to be registered. That is the difference between the exe and the dll. So what you have experienced is correct. .net is not going to auto register the dll for you and it expects it to be registered to use it.
Ben
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Ben,
Thanks for the reply, I think you are missing the point here.
VS2005 has a feature that automatically creates manifest
files for com dll's. This happens if you set the the isolated
property in the reference to true.
(see : http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/05/04/RegFreeCOM/[^]
If you use this in a solution that generates an executable this works like a charm,
you do not need to register the dlls anymore. However if you do this in a web project
or webservice this does not work anymore. The manifest files are created correctly but
I have the feeling it does not work because a webservice generates a dotnet dll and no exe.
This however seems strange to me, either I'm overseeing something or Microsoft has
simply not foreseen this and we still remain stuck with dll-hell. Strange in a world
that gets more and more filled with web projects and webservices.
Kind regards,
Markuseon
|
|
|
|
|
I would guess it may have to do with the IIS process not wanting to expose itself to the risk of an un managed dll. When it is an exe, it runs in its own process, but IIS is kind of a whole different beast.
Ben
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a newbie currently refreshing my learning on VS 2003.
Is the framework available on operating systems other than windows, say unix or solaris?
Jon
|
|
|
|
|
Mono is the other version of .NET, it's for *nix.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
"I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
|
|
|
|
|
jon_80 wrote: s the framework available on operating systems other than windows,
Yes
jon_80 wrote: say unix or solaris?
No
But Open source developers are trying to make the Technology OS independent
The Project is going on called MONO
Thanks and Regards
Sandeep
If If you look at what you do not have in life, you don't have anything,
If you look at what you have in life, you have everything... "
|
|
|
|
|
Sandeep Akhare wrote: say unix or solaris?
I believe Mono does work on Solaris and various Linux distros. Check out their supported platforms[^] page.
|
|
|
|
|
Judah Himango wrote: I believe Mono does work on Solaris and various Linux distros
Yes
That answer was for the current framework not for MONO 
Thanks and Regards
Sandeep
If If you look at what you do not have in life, you don't have anything,
If you look at what you have in life, you have everything... "
|
|
|
|
|
To extend upon Sandeep's post the MONO framework fully implements .net 1.1 except for winforms which was too win32 centric. Instead they wrote .net wrappers for GTK. .net 2.0 support is partial but supposedly contains all the commonly used features while they're still working on the obscure additions.
--
You have to explain to them [VB coders] what you mean by "typed". their first response is likely to be something like, "Of course my code is typed. Do you think i magically project it onto the screen with the power of my mind?" --- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
|
|
|
|
|
Nice one !
But Why are they doing ? Is there any confrontation with Microsoft ?
Thanks and Regards
Sandeep
If If you look at what you do not have in life, you don't have anything,
If you look at what you have in life, you have everything... "
|
|
|
|
|
Sandeep Akhare wrote: Is there any confrontation with Microsoft ?
No, there isn't. The .NET Framework is Microsoft's implementation of the Common Language Infrastructure specification, or CLI, that Microsoft invented. The CLI is a set of international standards ratified by ECMA and ISO. I'm sure you can find out more by looking up "Common Language Infrastructure" on Wikipedia.
|
|
|
|
|
(Window Application)
- I have 2 radio button (male, female) in gender GroupBox, and a customer table with column: gender (bit) (SQL Server 2000)
- how bind data for radio button, if gender = 0 [radio male] will be check and if gender = 1 [radio female] will be check
thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Hi!
i am doing licensing of my application which is developed in C#. I generated a license key and stored it in registry at location HKEY_Local_Machine\SOFTWARE\[App_Name]...but soon after doing this i came to know that this location is accessible by any one and any one can change/retrieve license key from there.
I want to know where can i store license key so that it is secured and not accessible to anyone except my application.
Thanks in advance...
Regards,
Affan Ahmad Toor
.....................................
QUAIDIAN FOR ONCE, QUAIDIAN FOR EVER!
|
|
|
|
|
Any location is accessible to anyone, and as your app is in C#, it can be decompiled, so anyone can see where you get it from. You need to ask yourself, how likely is your app to be pirated, and how much do you stand to lose ? If it's a lot, then you need to move some core functionality into a C++ dll, which also handles your licensing. The app must not be able to work without the dll, for this to work at all.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
"I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote: If it's a lot, then you need to move some core functionality into a C++ dll, which also handles your licensing.
This is also the only solution that, so far, I can imagine. But IMO it is weak, because maybe simple to hack the DLL call. Have you an other idea to improve security?
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
|
|
|
|
|
The best that you can hope to do is slow somebody down. Anybody armed with sufficient assembly knowledge and a decompiler can get past even the best licensing scheme given enough determination.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, thanks for reply...
if any location is accessible to anyone then what usually people do to secure their application? putting core functionality in a separate DLL seems a very time consuming way...is'nt there any other way...?
Is there any way i can do it using code, may be by using a different encryption technique or some thing else....?
Regards,
Affan Ahmad Toor
.....................................
QUAIDIAN FOR ONCE, QUAIDIAN FOR EVER!
|
|
|
|
|
Affan Toor wrote: putting core functionality in a separate DLL seems a very time consuming way
Actually it isn't: you have only to put authentication functionality there. Anyway it's a relatively weak solution.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for reply...
I got your point! i was thinking of core functionality as the major functions of application, but thats easy to put just the authentication functionality in dll.
Since this is the only available method to make application little bit secure, then i think i should go for it...
Thanks again...
Regards,
Affan Ahmad Toor
.....................................
QUAIDIAN FOR ONCE, QUAIDIAN FOR EVER!
|
|
|
|
|
You may also use a NET code obfuscator, but i don't know how secure it is.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
