Converting a VS 6.0 project

[Sugan]

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.

 

[Bruno van Dooren]

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.

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.

--

Kind regards,
Bruno van Dooren
(e-mail address removed)
Remove only "_nos_pam"

 

[Sugan]

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.

 

[Bruno van Dooren]

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.

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.

--

Kind regards,
Bruno van Dooren
(e-mail address removed)
Remove only "_nos_pam"

 

[David Wilkinson]

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.

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

 

[Sugan]

Hi David,

Thanks for your explanation.

-Sugan