Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncementsFree MagazinesWhite PapersSubmit Content
Discussion GroupsASP.NETWindows FormsLanguages.NET FrameworkVisual Studio.NET
Articles.NET FrameworkASP.NETToolsWindows Forms
.NET DirectoryOpen Source ProjectsUser GroupsWeb Resources
Related Topics
Visual Basic 6SQL ServerMS AccessOther DB ProductsMS Server ProductsMore Topics ...

.NET Forum / .NET Framework / CLR / July 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

binary compatibility support for .NET assembly

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
someone - 27 Jul 2004 23:16 GMT
Suppose that I have a class in an assembly that is delivered to the user,
what can I do to change the class so that it doesn't break the
binary compatibility?  That is, user application can run with recompiling
and relinking.

I know that if I define an interface, and only expose the interface but not
the class which implments the interface, I can add a data member to the
class without breaking the binary compatibility.  If the class itself,
rather than the interface is exposed to user, can I still add a data member
to the class without breaking the binary compatibility?  What are other
restrictions that won't break the binary compatibility?

In pure C++, adding a data member to a class that is exposed to the user
will break compatibility.

Thanks.
someone - 27 Jul 2004 23:21 GMT
> Suppose that I have a class in an assembly that is delivered to the user,
> what can I do to change the class so that it doesn't break the
> binary compatibility?  That is, user application can run with recompiling
> and relinking.

A mistake: 'with' should be 'without'.
Niki Estner - 28 Jul 2004 11:42 GMT
> Suppose that I have a class in an assembly that is delivered to the user,
> what can I do to change the class so that it doesn't break the
> binary compatibility?  That is, user application can run with recompiling
> and relinking.

.net applications are just-in-time compiled; There is no "linker". The kind
of tasks that used to be done by the linker are done at runtime (by the JIT)
anyway.

> I know that if I define an interface, and only expose the interface but not
> the class which implments the interface, I can add a data member to the
> class without breaking the binary compatibility.  If the class itself,
> rather than the interface is exposed to user, can I still add a data member
> to the class without breaking the binary compatibility?

Yes.

> What are other restrictions that won't break the binary compatibility?

Don't remove methods, make them private or change their signature if they
are used by the client. You'll get a "MissingMethodException" if the JIT
can't find a method that's called in your code.

> In pure C++, adding a data member to a class that is exposed to the user
> will break compatibility.

Yep. There are ways around this, but they usually require some work.
That's one of the reasons why .net was invented.

Niki
Niki Estner - 28 Jul 2004 11:49 GMT
> > Suppose that I have a class in an assembly that is delivered to the user,
> > what can I do to change the class so that it doesn't break the
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> of tasks that used to be done by the linker are done at runtime (by the JIT)
> anyway.

Sorry, that wasn't 100% correct: There is a linker (al.exe) that fuses
modules and resources, but it is rarely used, at least not in a usual
VS-build cycle.

Niki
someone - 28 Jul 2004 16:02 GMT
What about enumeration constants defined?  if their value is changed, I
assume that the binary compatibility is broken.  I know that this is true in
C++.

> > Suppose that I have a class in an assembly that is delivered to the user,
> > what can I do to change the class so that it doesn't break the
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> Niki
Niki Estner - 28 Jul 2004 22:18 GMT
I'm sorry, my first reply was definitely too short; Unfortunately I didn't
find any good article on the subject; So, here's a short list of things I
that came to my mind right now; In general
- You may safely change default values of data members
- You may safely change all private/internal fields of a class/struct
- You may usually add properties or methods to an existing class or struct
(this only hurts the client if it derives a class from that class, and
happens to add a property/method with the same signature)
- You may usually add data members and events to a class or struct, unless
you use binary serialization in your clients (the binary layout changes with
new data members)
- Removing, renaming or changing the type/signature of public/protected
properties/data members/events/methods can cause clients to crash (however
unlike C++ you'll get something like a "MethodNotFoundException", and no
memory will be overwritten) if (and only if) the client uses that member
- Removing an interface or changing the base class may hurt clients, if the
client casts to that class/interface
- Changing static constants/enums causes clients to break (didn't think of
that before your post)

Of course this list isn't complete, and there are may still be some cases
where even these rules don't work (e.g. if the client tries to invoke a
non-existing method using late-binding; If you add that method, the client
will behave differently). But I hope that this at least gives you a rough
sketch of what is done at compile-time, and what is done at run-time.

In general, if you expect an assembly to change often, using interfaces for
communication is not a bad idea.

Niki

> What about enumeration constants defined?  if their value is changed, I
> assume that the binary compatibility is broken.  I know that this is true in
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> >
> > Niki

Rate this thread:







Free Magazines

Get these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...

Oracle MagazineNetwork ComputingComputer WorldBio-IT WorldeWeekInformation WeekInfosecurity
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.