Dot Net Framework
Dot Net Framework
• 1. Introduction
o 1.1 What is .NET?
o 1.4 What operating systems does the .NET Framework run on?
• 2. Terminology
o 2.1 What is the CLI? Is it the same as the CLR?
o 2.2 What is the CTS, and how does it relate to the CLS?
• 3. Assemblies
o 3.1 What is an assembly?
• 5. Garbage Collection
o 5.1 What is garbage collection?
o 5.2 Is it true that objects don't always get destroyed immediately when
the last reference goes away?
o 5.3 Why doesn't the .NET runtime offer deterministic destruction?
o 5.7 How can I find out what the garbage collector is doing?
• 6. Serialization
o 6.1 What is serialization?
o 6.2 Does the .NET Framework have in-built support for serialization?
o 8.7 I'm having some trouble with CAS. How can I troubleshoot the
problem?
o 8.8 I can't be bothered with CAS. Can I turn it off?
• 11. Threads
o 11.1 How do I spawn a thread?
o 11.4 How do I know when my thread pool work item has completed?
• 12. Tracing
o 12.1 Is there built-in support for tracing/logging?
• 13. Miscellaneous
o 13.1 How does .NET remoting work?
o 13.2 How can I get at the Win32 API from a .NET program?
• 15. Resources
o 15.1 Recommended books
o 15.3 Blogs
1. Introduction
Bill Gates delivered a keynote at Forum 2000, held June 22, 2000, outlining the
.NET 'vision'. The July 2000 PDC had a number of sessions on .NET technology,
and delegates were given CDs containing a pre-release version of the .NET
framework/SDK and Visual Studio.NET.
The final versions of the 1.0 SDK and runtime were made publicly available around
6pm PST on 15-Jan-2002. At the same time, the final version of Visual Studio.NET
was made available to MSDN subscribers.
.NET 1.1 was released in April 2003, and was mostly bug fixes for 1.0.
.NET 2.0 was released to MSDN subscribers in late October 2005, and was officially
launched in early November.
1.4 What operating systems does the .NET Framework run on?
The runtime supports Windows Server 2003, Windows XP, Windows 2000, NT4
SP6a and Windows ME/98. Windows 95 is not supported. Some parts of the
framework do not work on all platforms - for example, ASP.NET is only supported on
XP and Windows 2000/2003. Windows 98/ME cannot be used for development.
IIS is not supported on Windows XP Home Edition, and so cannot be used to host
ASP.NET. However, the ASP.NET Web Matrix web server does run on XP Home.
The .NET Compact Framework is a version of the .NET Framework for mobile
devices, running Windows CE or Windows Mobile.
The Mono project has a version of the .NET Framework that runs on Linux.
1.5 What tools can I use to develop .NET applications?
I don't know what they were thinking. They certainly weren't thinking of people using
search tools. It's meaningless marketing nonsense.
2. Terminology
2.2 What is the CTS, and how does it relate to the CLS?
CTS = Common Type System. This is the full range of types that the .NET runtime
understands. Not all .NET languages support all the types in the CTS.
CLS = Common Language Specification. This is a subset of the CTS which all .NET
languages are expected to support. The idea is that any program which uses CLS-
compliant types can interoperate with any .NET program written in any language.
This interop is very fine-grained - for example a VB.NET class can inherit from a C#
class.
2.3 What is IL?
The term 'managed' is the cause of much confusion. It is used in various places
within .NET, meaning slightly different things.
Managed code: The .NET framework provides several core run-time services to the
programs that run within it - for example exception handling and security. For these
services to work, the code must provide a minimum level of information to the
runtime. Such code is called managed code.
Managed data: This is data that is allocated and freed by the .NET runtime's
garbage collector.
Managed classes: This is usually referred to in the context of Managed Extensions
(ME) for C++. When using ME C++, a class can be marked with the __gc keyword.
As the name suggests, this means that the memory for instances of the class is
managed by the garbage collector, but it also means more than that. The class
becomes a fully paid-up member of the .NET community with the benefits and
restrictions that brings. An example of a benefit is proper interop with classes written
in other languages - for example, a managed C++ class can inherit from a VB class.
An example of a restriction is that a managed class can only inherit from one base
class.
All .NET compilers produce metadata about the types defined in the modules they
produce. This metadata is packaged along with the module (modules in turn are
packaged together in assemblies), and can be accessed by a mechanism called
reflection. The System.Reflection namespace contains classes that can be used to
interrogate the types for a module/assembly.
Using reflection to access .NET metadata is very similar to using ITypeLib/ITypeInfo
to access type library data in COM, and it is used for similar purposes - e.g.
determining data type sizes for marshaling data across context/process/machine
boundaries.
Reflection can also be used to dynamically invoke methods (see
System.Type.InvokeMember), or even create types dynamically at run-time (see
System.Reflection.Emit.TypeBuilder).
3. Assemblies
The simplest way to produce an assembly is directly from a .NET compiler. For
example, the following C# program:
public class CTest
{
public CTest() { System.Console.WriteLine( "Hello from
CTest" ); }
}
can be compiled into a library assembly (dll) like this:
csc /t:library ctest.cs
You can then view the contents of the assembly by running the "IL Disassembler"
tool that comes with the .NET SDK.
Alternatively you can compile your source into modules, and then combine the
modules into an assembly using the assembly linker (al.exe). For the C# compiler,
the /target:module switch is used to generate a module instead of an assembly.
By searching directory paths. There are several factors which can affect the path
(such as the AppDomain host, and application configuration files), but for private
assemblies the search path is normally the application's directory and its sub-
directories. For shared assemblies, the search path is normally same as the private
assembly path plus the shared assembly cache.
Each assembly has a version number called the compatibility version. Also each
reference to an assembly (from another assembly) includes both the name and
version of the referenced assembly.
The version number has four numeric parts (e.g. 5.5.2.33). Assemblies with either of
the first two parts different are normally viewed as incompatible. If the first two parts
are the same, but the third is different, the assemblies are deemed as 'maybe
compatible'. If only the fourth part is different, the assemblies are deemed
compatible. However, this is just the default guideline - it is the version policy that
decides to what extent these rules are enforced. The version policy can be specified
via the application configuration file.
Remember: versioning is only applied to shared assemblies, not private
assemblies.
3.6 How can I develop an application that automatically updates itself from
the web?
For .NET 1.x, use the Updater Application Block. For .NET 2.x, use ClickOnce.
4. Application Domains
AppDomains are usually created by hosts. Examples of hosts are the Windows
Shell, ASP.NET and IE. When you run a .NET application from the command-line,
the host is the Shell. The Shell creates a new AppDomain for every application.
AppDomains can also be explicitly created by .NET applications. Here is a C#
sample which creates an AppDomain, creates an instance of an object inside it, and
then executes one of the object's methods:
using System;
using System.Runtime.Remoting;
using System.Reflection;
Yes. For an example of how to do this, take a look at the source for the dm.net
moniker developed by Jason Whittington and Don Box. There is also a code sample
in the .NET SDK called CorHost.
5. Garbage Collection
5.1 What is garbage collection?
5.2 Is it true that objects don't always get destroyed immediately when the
last reference goes away?
Yes. The garbage collector offers no guarantees about the time when an object will
be destroyed and its memory reclaimed.
There was an interesting thread on the DOTNET list, started by Chris Sells, about
the implications of non-deterministic destruction of objects in C#. In October 2000,
Microsoft's Brian Harry posted a lengthy analysis of the problem. Chris Sells'
response to Brian's posting is here.
Because of the garbage collection algorithm. The .NET garbage collector works by
periodically running through a list of all the objects that are currently being
referenced by an application. All the objects that it doesn't find during this search
are ready to be destroyed and the memory reclaimed. The implication of this
algorithm is that the runtime doesn't get notified immediately when the final
reference on an object goes away - it only finds out during the next 'sweep' of the
heap.
Futhermore, this type of algorithm works best by performing the garbage collection
sweep as rarely as possible. Normally heap exhaustion is the trigger for a collection
sweep.
It's certainly an issue that affects component design. If you have objects that
maintain expensive or scarce resources (e.g. database locks), you need to provide
some way to tell the object to release the resource when it is done. Microsoft
recommend that you provide a method called Dispose() for this purpose. However,
this causes problems for distributed objects - in a distributed system who calls the
Dispose() method? Some form of reference-counting or ownership-management
mechanism is needed to handle distributed objects - unfortunately the runtime offers
no help with this.
This issue is a little more complex than it first appears. There are really two
categories of class that require deterministic destruction - the first category
manipulate unmanaged types directly, whereas the second category manipulate
managed types that require deterministic destruction. An example of the first
category is a class with an IntPtr member representing an OS file handle. An
example of the second category is a class with a System.IO.FileStream member.
For the first category, it makes sense to implement IDisposable and override
Finalize. This allows the object user to 'do the right thing' by calling Dispose, but
also provides a fallback of freeing the unmanaged resource in the Finalizer, should
the calling code fail in its duty. However this logic does not apply to the second
category of class, with only managed resources. In this case implementing Finalize
is pointless, as managed member objects cannot be accessed in the Finalizer. This
is because there is no guarantee about the ordering of Finalizer execution. So only
the Dispose method should be implemented. (If you think about it, it doesn't really
make sense to call Dispose on member objects from a Finalizer anyway, as the
member object's Finalizer will do the required cleanup.)
For classes that need to implement IDisposable and override Finalize, see
Microsoft's documented pattern.
Note that some developers argue that implementing a Finalizer is always a bad
idea, as it hides a bug in your code (i.e. the lack of a Dispose call). A less radical
approach is to implement Finalize but include a Debug.Assert at the start, thus
signalling the problem in developer builds but allowing the cleanup to occur in
release builds.
A little. For example the System.GC class exposes a Collect method, which forces
the garbage collector to collect all unreferenced objects immediately.
Also there is a gcConcurrent setting that can be specified via the application
configuration file. This specifies whether or not the garbage collector performs some
of its collection activities on a separate thread. The setting only applies on multi-
processor machines, and defaults to true.
5.7 How can I find out what the garbage collector is doing?
Lots of interesting statistics are exported from the .NET runtime via the '.NET CLR
xxx' performance counters. Use Performance Monitor to view them.
The lapsed listener problem is one of the primary causes of leaks in .NET
applications. It occurs when a subscriber (or 'listener') signs up for a publisher's
event, but fails to unsubscribe. The failure to unsubscribe means that the publisher
maintains a reference to the subscriber as long as the publisher is alive. For some
publishers, this may be the duration of the application.
This situation causes two problems. The obvious problem is the leakage of the
subscriber object. The other problem is the performance degredation due to the
publisher sending redundant notifications to 'zombie' subscribers.
There are at least a couple of solutions to the problem. The simplest is to make sure
the subscriber is unsubscribed from the publisher, typically by adding an
Unsubscribe() method to the subscriber. Another solution, documented here by
Shawn Van Ness, is to change the publisher to use weak references in its
subscriber list.
class Win32
{
[DllImport("kernel32.dll")]
public static extern IntPtr CreateEvent( IntPtr
lpEventAttributes,
bool bManualReset,bool bInitialState, string lpName);
[DllImport("kernel32.dll", SetLastError=true)]
public static extern bool CloseHandle(IntPtr hObject);
[DllImport("kernel32.dll")]
public static extern bool SetEvent(IntPtr hEvent);
}
class EventUser
{
public EventUser()
{
hEvent = Win32.CreateEvent( IntPtr.Zero, false,
false, null );
}
~EventUser()
{
Win32.CloseHandle( hEvent );
Console.WriteLine("EventUser finalized");
}
IntPtr hEvent;
}
class App
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
EventUser eventUser = new EventUser();
eventUser.UseEvent();
}
}
If you run this code, it'll probably work fine, and you'll get the following output:
SetEvent succeeded
EventDemo finalized
However, if you uncomment the GC.Collect() call in the UseEventInStatic() method,
you'll get this output:
EventDemo finalized
SetEvent FAILED!
(Note that you need to use a release build to reproduce this problem.)
So what's happening here? Well, at the point where UseEvent() calls
UseEventInStatic(), a copy is taken of the hEvent field, and there are no further
references to the EventUser object anywhere in the code. So as far as the runtime
is concerned, the EventUser object is garbage and can be collected. Normally of
course the collection won't happen immediately, so you'll get away with it, but
sooner or later a collection will occur at the wrong time, and your app will fail.
A solution to this problem is to add a call to GC.KeepAlive(this) to the end of the
UseEvent method, as Chris explains.
6. Serialization
6.2 Does the .NET Framework have in-built support for serialization?
There are two separate mechanisms provided by the .NET class library -
XmlSerializer and SoapFormatter/BinaryFormatter. Microsoft uses XmlSerializer for
Web Services, and SoapFormatter/BinaryFormatter for remoting. Both are available
for use in your own code.
It depends. XmlSerializer has severe limitations such as the requirement that the
target class has a parameterless constructor, and only public read/write properties
and fields can be serialized. However, on the plus side, XmlSerializer has good
support for customising the XML document that is produced or consumed.
XmlSerializer's features mean that it is most suitable for cross-platform work, or for
constructing objects from existing XML documents.
SoapFormatter and BinaryFormatter have fewer limitations than XmlSerializer. They
can serialize private fields, for example. However they both require that the target
class be marked with the [Serializable] attribute, so like XmlSerializer the class
needs to be written with serialization in mind. Also there are some quirks to watch
out for - for example on deserialization the constructor of the new object is not
invoked.
The choice between SoapFormatter and BinaryFormatter depends on the
application. BinaryFormatter makes sense where both serialization and
deserialization will be performed on the .NET platform and where performance is
important. SoapFormatter generally makes more sense in all other cases, for ease
of debugging if nothing else.
Look at the InnerException property of the exception that is thrown to get a more
specific error message.
7. Attributes
There are at least two types of .NET attribute. The first type I will refer to as a
metadata attribute - it allows some data to be attached to a class or method. This
data becomes part of the metadata for the class, and (like other class metadata)
can be accessed via reflection. An example of a metadata attribute is [serializable],
which can be attached to a class and means that instances of the class can be
serialized.
[serializable] public class CTest {}
The other type of attribute is a context attribute. Context attributes use a similar
syntax to metadata attributes but they are fundamentally different. Context attributes
provide an interception mechanism whereby instance activation and method calls
can be pre- and/or post-processed. If you have encountered Keith Brown's universal
delegator you'll be familiar with this idea.
Yes. Simply derive a class from System.Attribute and mark it with the AttributeUsage
attribute. For example:
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class)]
public class InspiredByAttribute : System.Attribute
{
public string InspiredBy;
class CApp
{
public static void Main()
{
object[] atts =
typeof(CTest).GetCustomAttributes(true);
CAS is the part of the .NET security model that determines whether or not code is
allowed to run, and what resources it can use when it is running. For example, it is
CAS that will prevent a .NET web applet from formatting your hard disk.
The CAS security policy revolves around two key concepts - code groups and
permissions. Each .NET assembly is a member of a particular code group, and
each code group is granted the permissions specified in a named permission set.
For example, using the default security policy, a control downloaded from a web site
belongs to the 'Zone - Internet' code group, which adheres to the permissions
defined by the 'Internet' named permission set. (Naturally the 'Internet' named
permission set represents a very restrictive range of permissions.)
Microsoft defines some default ones, but you can modify these and even create
your own. To see the code groups defined on your system, run 'caspol -lg' from the
command-line. On my system it looks like this:
Level = Machine
Code Groups:
Use caspol. For example, suppose you trust code from www.mydomain.com and
you want it have full access to your system, but you want to keep the default
restrictions for all other internet sites. To achieve this, you would add a new code
group as a sub-group of the 'Zone - Internet' group, like this:
caspol -ag 1.3 -site www.mydomain.com FullTrust
Now if you run caspol -lg you will see that the new group has been added as group
1.3.1:
...
1.3. Zone - Internet: Internet
1.3.1. Site - www.mydomain.com: FullTrust
...
Note that the numeric label (1.3.1) is just a caspol invention to make the code
groups easy to manipulate from the command-line. The underlying runtime never
sees it.
Use caspol. If you are the machine administrator, you can operate at the 'machine'
level - which means not only that the changes you make become the default for the
machine, but also that users cannot change the permissions to be more permissive.
If you are a normal (non-admin) user you can still modify the permissions, but only
to make them more restrictive. For example, to allow intranet code to do what it likes
you might do this:
caspol -cg 1.2 FullTrust
Note that because this is more permissive than the default policy (on a standard
system), you should only do this at the machine level - doing it at the user level will
have no effect.
Yes. Use caspol -ap, specifying an XML file containing the permissions in the
permission set. To save you some time, here is a sample file corresponding to the
'Everything' permission set - just edit to suit your needs. When you have edited the
sample, add it to the range of available permission sets like this:
caspol -ap samplepermset.xml
Then, to apply the permission set to a code group, do something like this:
caspol -cg 1.3 SamplePermSet
(By default, 1.3 is the 'Internet' code group)
8.7 I'm having some trouble with CAS. How can I troubleshoot the
problem?
Caspol has a couple of options that might help. First, you can ask caspol to tell you
what code group an assembly belongs to, using caspol -rsg. Similarly, you can ask
what permissions are being applied to a particular assembly using caspol -rsp.
Yes. MS supply a tool called Ildasm that can be used to view the metadata and IL
for an assembly.
Yes, it is often relatively straightforward to regenerate high-level source from IL. Lutz
Roeder's Reflector does a very good job of turning IL into C# or VB.NET.
You can buy an IL obfuscation tool. These tools work by 'optimising' the IL in such a
way that reverse-engineering becomes much more difficult.
Of course if you are writing web services then reverse-engineering is not a problem
as clients do not have access to your IL.
Yes. Peter Drayton posted this simple example to the DOTNET mailing list:
.assembly MyAssembly {}
.class MyApp {
.method static void Main() {
.entrypoint
ldstr "Hello, IL!"
call void System.Console::WriteLine(class
System.Object)
ret
}
}
Just put this into a file called hello.il, and then run ilasm hello.il. An exe assembly
will be generated.
9.5 Can I do things in IL that I can't do in C#?
Yes. A couple of simple examples are that you can throw exceptions that are not
derived from System.Exception, and you can have non-zero-based arrays.
This subject causes a lot of controversy, as you'll see if you read the mailing list
archives. Take a look at the following two threads:
http://discuss.develop.com/archives/wa.exe?A2=ind0007&L=DOTNET&D=0&P=682
41
http://discuss.develop.com/archives/wa.exe?A2=ind0007&L=DOTNET&P=R60761
The bottom line is that .NET has its own mechanisms for type interaction, and they
don't use COM. No IUnknown, no IDL, no typelibs, no registry-based activation. This
is mostly good, as a lot of COM was ugly. Generally speaking, .NET allows you to
package and use components in a similar way to COM, but makes the whole thing a
bit easier.
Pretty much, for .NET developers. The .NET Framework has a new remoting model
which is not based on DCOM. DCOM was pretty much dead anyway, once firewalls
became widespread and Microsoft got SOAP fever. Of course DCOM will still be
used in interop scenarios.
Not immediately. The approach for .NET 1.0 was to provide access to the existing
COM+ services (through an interop layer) rather than replace the services with
native .NET ones. Various tools and attributes were provided to make this as
painless as possible. Over time it is expected that interop will become more
seamless - this may mean that some services become a core part of the CLR,
and/or it may mean that some services will be rewritten as managed code which
runs on top of the CLR.
For more on this topic, search for postings by Joe Long in the archives - Joe is the
MS group manager for COM+. Start with this message:
http://discuss.develop.com/archives/wa.exe?A2=ind0007&L=DOTNET&P=R68370
Yes. COM components are accessed from the .NET runtime via a Runtime Callable
Wrapper (RCW). This wrapper turns the COM interfaces exposed by the COM
component into .NET-compatible interfaces. For oleautomation interfaces, the RCW
can be generated automatically from a type library. For non-oleautomation
interfaces, it may be necessary to develop a custom RCW which manually maps the
types exposed by the COM interface to .NET-compatible types.
Here's a simple example for those familiar with ATL. First, create an ATL component
which implements the following IDL:
import "oaidl.idl";
import "ocidl.idl";
[
object,
uuid(EA013F93-487A-4403-86EC-FD9FEE5E6206),
helpstring("ICppName Interface"),
pointer_default(unique),
oleautomation
]
[
uuid(F5E4C61D-D93A-4295-A4B4-2453D4A4484D),
version(1.0),
helpstring("cppcomserver 1.0 Type Library")
]
library CPPCOMSERVERLib
{
importlib("stdole32.tlb");
importlib("stdole2.tlb");
[
uuid(600CE6D9-5ED7-4B4D-BB49-E8D5D5096F70),
helpstring("CppName Class")
]
coclass CppName
{
[default] interface ICppName;
};
};
When you've built the component, you should get a typelibrary. Run the TLBIMP
utility on the typelibary, like this:
tlbimp cppcomserver.tlb
If successful, you will get a message like this:
Typelib imported successfully to CPPCOMSERVERLib.dll
You now need a .NET client - let's use C#. Create a .cs file containing the following
code:
using System;
using CPPCOMSERVERLib;
Yes. .NET components are accessed from COM via a COM Callable Wrapper
(CCW). This is similar to a RCW (see previous question), but works in the opposite
direction. Again, if the wrapper cannot be automatically generated by the .NET
development tools, or if the automatic behaviour is not desirable, a custom CCW
can be developed. Also, for COM to 'see' the .NET component, the .NET component
must be registered in the registry.
Here's a simple example. Create a C# file called testcomserver.cs and put the
following in it:
using System;
using System.Runtime.InteropServices;
namespace AndyMc
{
[ClassInterface(ClassInterfaceType.AutoDual)]
public class CSharpCOMServer
{
public CSharpCOMServer() {}
public void SetName( string name ) { m_name = name; }
public string GetName() { return m_name; }
private string m_name;
}
}
Then compile the .cs file as follows:
csc /target:library testcomserver.cs
You should get a dll, which you register like this:
regasm testcomserver.dll /tlb:testcomserver.tlb /codebase
Now you need to create a client to test your .NET COM component. VBScript will do
- put the following in a file called comclient.vbs:
Dim dotNetObj
Set dotNetObj = CreateObject("AndyMc.CSharpCOMServer")
dotNetObj.SetName ("bob")
MsgBox "Name is " & dotNetObj.GetName()
and run the script like this:
wscript comclient.vbs
And hey presto you should get a message box displayed with the text "Name is
bob".
An alternative to the approach above it to use the dm.net moniker developed by
Jason Whittington and Don Box.
Yes. ATL will continue to be valuable for writing COM components for some time,
but it has no place in the .NET world.
11. Threads
11.1 How do I spawn a thread?
There are several options. First, you can use your own communication mechanism
to tell the ThreadStart method to finish. Alternatively the Thread class has in-built
support for instructing the thread to stop. The two principle methods are
Thread.Interrupt() and Thread.Abort(). The former will cause a
ThreadInterruptedException to be thrown on the thread when it next goes into a
WaitJoinSleep state. In other words, Thread.Interrupt is a polite way of asking the
thread to stop when it is no longer doing any useful work. In contrast, Thread.Abort()
throws a ThreadAbortException regardless of what the thread is doing.
Furthermore, the ThreadAbortException cannot normally be caught (though the
ThreadStart's finally method will be executed). Thread.Abort() is a heavy-handed
mechanism which should not normally be required.
11.4 How do I know when my thread pool work item has completed?
There is no way to query the thread pool for this information. You must put code into
the WaitCallback method to signal that it has completed. Events are useful for this.
Each object has a concurrency lock (critical section) associated with it. The
System.Threading.Monitor.Enter/Exit methods are used to acquire and release this
lock. For example, instances of the following class only allow one thread at a time to
enter method f():
class C
{
public void f()
{
try
{
Monitor.Enter(this);
...
}
finally
{
Monitor.Exit(this);
}
}
}
C# has a 'lock' keyword which provides a convenient shorthand for the code above:
class C
{
public void f()
{
lock(this)
{
...
}
}
}
Note that calling Monitor.Enter(myObject) does NOT mean that all access to
myObject is serialized. It means that the synchronisation lock associated with
myObject has been acquired, and no other thread can acquire that lock until
Monitor.Exit(o) is called. In other words, this class is functionally equivalent to the
classes above:
class C
{
public void f()
{
lock( m_object )
{
...
}
}
12. Tracing
Yes, in the System.Diagnostics namespace. There are two main classes that deal
with tracing - Debug and Trace. They both work in a similar way - the difference is
that tracing from the Debug class only works in builds that have the DEBUG symbol
defined, whereas tracing from the Trace class only works in builds that have the
TRACE symbol defined. Typically this means that you should use
System.Diagnostics.Trace.WriteLine for tracing that you want to work in debug and
release builds, and System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine for tracing that you want to
work only in debug builds.
Yes. The Debug and Trace classes both have a Listeners property, which is a
collection of sinks that receive the tracing that you send via Debug.WriteLine and
Trace.WriteLine respectively. By default the Listeners collection contains a single
sink, which is an instance of the DefaultTraceListener class. This sends output to
the Win32 OutputDebugString() function and also the
System.Diagnostics.Debugger.Log() method. This is useful when debugging, but if
you're trying to trace a problem at a customer site, redirecting the output to a file is
more appropriate. Fortunately, the TextWriterTraceListener class is provided for this
purpose.
Here's how to use the TextWriterTraceListener class to redirect Trace output to a
file:
Trace.Listeners.Clear();
FileStream fs = new FileStream( @"c:\log.txt",
FileMode.Create, FileAccess.Write );
Trace.Listeners.Add( new TextWriterTraceListener( fs ) );
Yes. You can write your own TraceListener-derived class, and direct all output
through it. Here's a simple example, which derives from TextWriterTraceListener
(and therefore has in-built support for writing to files, as shown above) and adds
timing information and the thread ID for each trace line:
class MyListener : TextWriterTraceListener
{
public MyListener( Stream s ) : base(s)
{
}
13. Miscellaneous
13.2 How can I get at the Win32 API from a .NET program?
Use P/Invoke. This uses similar technology to COM Interop, but is used to access
static DLL entry points instead of COM objects. Here is an example of C# calling the
Win32 MessageBox function:
using System;
using System.Runtime.InteropServices;
class MainApp
{
[DllImport("user32.dll", EntryPoint="MessageBox",
SetLastError=true, CharSet=CharSet.Auto)]
public static extern int MessageBox(int hWnd, String
strMessage, String strCaption, uint uiType);
Each instance of a reference type has two fields maintained by the runtime - a
method table pointer and a sync block. These are 4 bytes each on a 32-bit system,
making a total of 8 bytes per object overhead. Obviously the instance data for the
type must be added to this to get the overall size of the object. So, for example,
instances of the following class are 12 bytes each:
class MyInt
{
...
private int x;
}
However, note that with the current implementation of the CLR there seems to be a
minimum object size of 12 bytes, even for classes with no data (e.g.
System.Object).
Values types have no equivalent overhead.
Generics are useful for writing efficient type-independent code, particularly where
the types might include value types. The obvious application is container classes,
and the .NET 2.0 class library includes a suite of generic container classes in the
System.Collections.Generic namespace. Here's a simple example of a generic
container class being used:
List<int> myList = new List<int>();
myList.Add( 10 );
Anonymous methods reduce the amount of code you have to write when using
delegates, and are therefore especially useful for GUI programming. Here's an
example
AppDomain.CurrentDomain.ProcessExit += delegate
{ Console.WriteLine("Process ending ..."); };
Partial classes is a useful feature for separating machine-generated code from
hand-written code in the same class, and will therefore be heavily used by
development tools such as Visual Studio.
Iterators reduce the amount of code you need to write to implement
IEnumerable/IEnumerator. Here's some sample code:
static void Main()
{
RandomEnumerator re = new RandomEnumerator( 5 );
foreach( double r in re )
Console.WriteLine( r );
Console.Read();
}
int m_size = 0;
}
The use of 'yield return' is rather strange at first sight. It effectively synthethises an
implementation of IEnumerator, something we had to do manually in .NET 1.x.
.NET generics work great for container classes. But what about other uses? Well, it
turns out that .NET generics have a major limitation - they require the type
parameter to be constrained. For example, you cannot do this:
static class Disposer<T>
{
public static void Dispose(T obj) { obj.Dispose(); }
}
The C# compiler will refuse to compile this code, as the type T has not been
constrained, and therefore only supports the methods of System.Object. Dispose is
not a method on System.Object, so the compilation fails. To fix this code, we need
to add a where clause, to reassure the compiler that our type T does indeed have a
Dispose method
static class Disposer<T> where T : IDisposable
{
public static void Dispose(T obj) { obj.Dispose(); }
}
The problem is that the requirement for explicit contraints is very limiting. We can
use constraints to say that T implements a particular interface, but we can't dilute
that to simply say that T implements a particular method. Contrast this with C++
templates (for example), where no constraint at all is required - it is assumed (and
verified at compile time) that if the code invokes the Dispose() method on a type,
then the type will support the method.
In fact, after writing generic code with interface constraints, we quickly see that we
haven't gained much over non-generic interface-based programming. For example,
we can easily rewrite the Disposer class without generics:
static class Disposer
{
public static void Dispose( IDisposable obj )
{ obj.Dispose(); }
}
For more on this topic, start by reading the following articles:
Bruce Eckel: http://www.mindview.net/WebLog/log-0050
Ian Griffiths: http://www.interact-sw.co.uk/iangblog/2004/03/14/generics
Charles Cook: http://www.cookcomputing.com/blog/archives/000425.html