Converting a VS 6.0 project

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Sugan - 11 Jul 2006 08:15 GMT

Hi all,

A VC 6.0 project( output is a Activex DLL) is converted to VC 2005
project and the output here is again a DLL.

When i try to include this DLL as a refernce is another VB 2005
project, i see this DLL as a COM DLL and it is creating a interop DLL
for interoperability. Why is it still seen as a COM DLL. When compiled
through Visual Studio 2005, does it not change it to a .Net DLL.

Can some one figure out what is goin wrong in this conversion.

Thanks,
Sugan.

Reply to this Message

Bruno van Dooren - 11 Jul 2006 09:12 GMT

> A VC 6.0 project( output is a Activex DLL) is converted to VC 2005
> project and the output here is again a DLL.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> for interoperability. Why is it still seen as a COM DLL. When compiled
> through Visual Studio 2005, does it not change it to a .Net DLL.

ActiveX == COM sort of. the terminology is mixed so often that the
difference between the 2 depends on when the question was asked at a
specific point in time.

If you add a COM/ActiveX reference to a .NET project, a wrapper will
automatically be created by VS *
so that you can use ActiveX objects like .NET objects.
(*) if there is a type library.

> Can some one figure out what is goin wrong in this conversion.

Nothing. Your activeX project is still an activeX project.
It will still create an ActiveX component.

Signature

Kind regards,
Bruno van Dooren
bruno_nos_pam_van_dooren@hotmail.com
Remove only "_nos_pam"

Reply to this Message

Sugan - 11 Jul 2006 09:35 GMT

Does it mean that even if i convert a ActiveX project from VC 6.0 to VC
2005, it is not a .Net DLL. Still i have to use it by selecting it from
the COM Dll category. So it would again create a InterOp Dll when i use
it .Net Framework.

Now, what is the difference between the Dll compiled in VC 6.0 and VC
2005, as both results in producing a Interop DLL when included in a
.Net project.

Thanks,
Sugan.

> Nothing. Your activeX project is still an activeX project.
> It will still create an ActiveX component.

Reply to this Message

Bruno van Dooren - 11 Jul 2006 10:37 GMT

> Does it mean that even if i convert a ActiveX project from VC 6.0 to VC
> 2005, it is not a .Net DLL. Still i have to use it by selecting it from
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> 2005, as both results in producing a Interop DLL when included in a
> .Net project.

For practical purposes there is no difference between the 2.
They are both ActiveX libraries.
Of course, VC2005 has a better compiler etc, so the code may be faster /
more efficient.

Signature

Kind regards,
Bruno van Dooren
bruno_nos_pam_van_dooren@hotmail.com
Remove only "_nos_pam"

Reply to this Message

David Wilkinson - 11 Jul 2006 10:50 GMT

> Does it mean that even if i convert a ActiveX project from VC 6.0 to VC
> 2005, it is not a .Net DLL. Still i have to use it by selecting it from
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>>Nothing. Your activeX project is still an activeX project.
>>It will still create an ActiveX component.

Sugan:

Functionally, there is no difference, though the VC 2005 one might run
better because the optimizations are better.

The (only?) good thing about COM is that it is language-independent.
Unlike other static or dynamic libraries, you do not have to recompile
COM DLL's when you move the client application to a different compiler.

David Wilkinson

Reply to this Message

Sugan - 11 Jul 2006 15:42 GMT

Hi David,

Thanks for your explanation.

-Sugan

Reply to this Message

Converting a VS 6.0 project

Free Magazines