|
Having a separate console app that loads the Assembly would definitely be another way, but the only reason would be to simply remove the main, I don't see a big benefit.
|
|
|
|
|
I was thinking:
myProgram.exe -> runs a test suite
myProgram.exe /run -> runs a traditional program if implemented or returns if it's a library
|
|
|
|
|
That sounds kinda backward to me.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: I don't see a big benefit.
You'd be separating the "testing" code from the code being tested. Better yet, put it in your own class, as opposed to the Program class, and get the benefits of inheritance.
I can see how one would create an application that executes SQL from the command prompt, and references this as if it is a library to get the appropriate databaseclasses.
Then again, you don't want to be referencing a WinApp application from a Webapplication and have it load the complete Forms-environment and all its dependencies.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: referencing a WinApp application from a Webapplication and have it load the complete Forms-environment and all its dependencies
I don't think we're talking about doing anything like that. Just a regular library, but with the ability to self-identify at the console.
|
|
|
|
|
So, how are you going to share your reusable code? Executables? Or are you going to cut and paste? Oh, and if you're adding a reference to something like a standard .NET assembly guess what, that's a DLL? Simply, a DLL is a convenient way to share functionality.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: how are you going to share your reusable code?
The same way, but as an EXE with some sort of helpful library-specific functionality in the main. :shrug:
|
|
|
|
|
Why would you want to make your code monolithic by including it in larger .EXE's, thereby increasing load time?
Why would you want to give the users the ability to launch a "library" .EXE that does nothing but return to the command prompt?
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: make your code monolithic by including it in larger .EXE's
That's not what he means.
|
|
|
|
|
I know.
I was just pointing out that some people can go overboard with the ILMerge tool and end up making an .EXE that's 10's or 100's of MB in size. Then they wonder why it takes so long to load.
|
|
|
|
|
+5
"Let's make a shared library out of that code"
"Lets us ILMerge those"
It is also done on the web, where they call it "packaging" or something like it. I wonder how many sites made me download a JQuery library that's already cached in the browser.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, you've done SSIS too? 
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't want to do either and nothing about my question implies I would.
|
|
|
|
|
By wrapping everything in an executable you're just adding extra dead weight.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you know how much and if so is it a constant amount?
|
|
|
|
|
It's not constant as the sizes of various tables in the resulting .EXE change depending on what is in the .EXE.
|
|
|
|
|
A single static method. How much do they weigh?
..and now in metric? 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
It's the startup code, import tables, data tables, blah, blah, blah for a Win32 executable, that a .DLL doesn't have, nor need. A .NET assembly in an .EXE is not 100% MSIL code. There is still unmanaged code in there to get the process running under the CLR.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: There is still unmanaged code in there to get the process running under the CLR
I'd be (at least a little) surprised if that got loaded with the Assembly when referenced in the usual way -- it ought to only affect disk usage except when executed (but then we're talking about Microsoft).
|
|
|
|
|
I just made a rough measure of this empirically:
1 class and 1 method DLL in release mode (4k on disk) vs EXE (5k on disk)
10 classes with 10 methods each in release mode gave DLL (7k on disk) and EXE (8k on disk)
So the bloat increases far less than I'd consider to be significant.
As for process start and CLR load.... remember we are just loading a library into an existing running CLR.
|
|
|
|
|
I think Dave is also concerned about size in memory (when referenced normally), which is harder to measure.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, you're looking at disk usage, not in memory.
If you want an idea of what overhead you're including, look at the Imports table in the .EXE.
|
|
|
|
|
I've now done the same using perfmon and don't see a significant overhead after taking the difference in process memory size.
Can you point to more information on this subject?
|
|
|
|
|
Windows Internals 6th Edition, Part 1 and 2.
Perfmon will only tell you exactly what you're telling it to, and only if the data is interpreted correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
In a sense there is little difference between dlls and exes from the .NET perspective. I sometimes make code that is designed to be consumed by something (so would normally be a DLL) an .exe to support stand-alone use etc.
My main point would be that they are conceptually different things. One is an application, the other is a reusable library. In a normal .NET deployment all your assemblies end up deployed in the same folder. Would you really want 20 .exes which don't do anything when you run them?
It is a useful semantic distinction.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
