My program has a static interface, but I don't know what's the best way to make my interface. With resource files or with the CreateWindow function using the WM_CREATE message?
Thanks
Id recommend starting with dialog resources first. Then, if/when that is insufficient, make your own windows directly.
As a hardcore native developer, if you really want to make applications with a nice GUI, i hate to say this, but you'll get much more bang for your buck if you go with .NET's WPF - or even Windows Forms as a window layout language.
MS have made a concerted (and to my mind, somewhat malicious) effort to not add necessary new features for native applications so we are left building everything from scratch: the native controls don't support alpha aware painting, don't support back buffering, havn't been upgraded with the new Windows 7 widgets like ribbon bars, havn't been given any kind of animation system, and the dialog template based layout system is inflexible at best.
Related
We were able to use automation tool and it was able to identify html objects on Winforms while on WPF it does not since it is rendered as an image.
My main question is what does Winform CEFSharp uses to render and why WPF not able to use a similar rendering mechanism?
Warning: it is a very generic answer. I briefly looked at CEF source (briefly - 3-5 minutes) and the rest are my guesses based on my own WPF/WinForms interop experiences. I've had quite a few. I also played a bit with early Chromium builds. However, all of that was a few years ago, so it may simply be out dated. Maybe Chromium has now first-class WPF support. I have not found any information about that, but if this really happened, I encourage you even stronger to follow the last paragraph.
--
I doubt that there is any reason behind this other than time-cost to implement -
either on CEF or Chromium project.
WinForms and WPF are totally different GUI frameworks, written in different eras, using different architectures, different rendering techniques, different platform features, etc. This is as different as it can be, down to the idea of a "Window" itself.
In WinForms, almost every control is a separate small window-like thing, has a system-wide handle, has a system-tracked region, etc. All controls render themselves almost directly by unmanaged win32 GDI+ functions.
In WPF they don't. In WPF there's only one handle per whole window, controls don't render themselves. Instead they have a definition of their "look" and the WPF renders them to the 'surface', which is then blitted/streamed (sorry, dont remember) to target device.
That's true that CEF uses different approaches. For WinForms they make heavy use of a 'browser component' taken directly from Chromium, for WPF they render to bitmap and show/update the bitmap periodically.
Why? My guess is that it's because Chromium already provided a COM/OCX/ActiveX/whatever component, and WinForms can use it almost directly, thanks to the everything-has-a-handle "feature" - if you can call it a feature - one of the goals and successes of WPF was to eliminate that.
However, I don't think that Chromium at that point of time provides any such component for WPF.
If it does not exist, then for WPF there are only two options - one could embed the WinForms component in WPF window through a special 'host' intermediate control, but that actually hits the performance and also has many problems when some advanced rendering features (like movie streaming) are used. Diagnosing and fixing them is complex, hard, and even unstable (crosshosted components behave very differently on different windows and .net versions, even on .net patches sometimes change them, it can work one one, and freeze on other, hang and render as black on next and cause a blue-screen on another)
Other option for WPF is to use the "offscreen" mode. Chromium can render to a bitmap, so why not. Render to bitmap, and display that. Simple. Quick. No problems.
So, I'd say, it all boils down to a famous quote from Eric Lippert:
The question is "why does [snip] not have this feature?" The answer to that question is always the same. Features are unimplemented by default; [snip] does not have that feature because no one designed, implemented and shipped the feature to customers.
It's great we can at least display Chromium in WPF apps. If you think it can be done better and that it's worth doing, it's open source, feel free to implement it - if not in CEF, then in Chromium itself.
This might be a stupid question, but there are soo many combinations of approach (wpf, silverlight, winforms, html5) with incompatibility at mscorlib level, that I got completely lost.
I would like to be able to have a few windows mainly displaying realtime charts.
Probably with interaction among the windows (click in one, pop and display a new windows)
If it can be viewed on the web, perfect.
But I dont want to have to deal with another layer of nasty stuff for those features (like having to setup some "WCF" on a "IIS", kill me first)
In the end I was thinking of using FSharpChart on Silverlight.
Is that possible and/ or the best option ?
Thanks for your suggestions
update
I see that system.drawing which fsharpchart relies on is not silverlight supported..
Try Dynamic Data Display instead of FSharpChart. It runs on Silverlight: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/cambridge/groups/science/tools/d3/dynamicdatadisplay.htm
It's not as F# Interactive friendly as FSharpChart, but you can easily wrap it in a handful of functions to make it more usable
By modern menus I mean menus like those made using MFC or Windows Forms(MenuStrips). I know that it is possible since I have seen some apps that use it which are developed in the Windows Api. It has also been done in the Win32++ library, and MFC and WinForms are just Win Api wrappers so if they contain modern menus, Win Api must contain them too. But my question is... How can I make a menustrip directly in the Windows Api? Is it included in the CommonControls? Or do i have to implement it myself? If so then how? Example code needed, but not necessary.
Menus somewhat like this
MFC and Winforms use very similar approaches to implement these custom menus. They start with generic support in their ToolBar/ToolStrip classes and specialize them for the menu bar/item classes.
You'll find the MFC implementation in vc/atlmfc/src/mfc. The afxtoolbarxxx.cpp source code files are about 24,000 lines of C++ code. Menu class specializations are in afxmenuxxx.cpp, another couple of thousand source code lines.
You can obtain the source code for the Winform classes from the Reference source. The ToolStripxxx.cs source code files are about 40,000 lines of C# code. Menu class specializations are in Menuxxx.cs, another couple of thousand source code lines.
Both use lots of support classes provided in their respective frameworks, basic stuff like window wrappers and image/text rendering support. Hard to guess how much of that they pull in.
Numbers like this are about an order of magnitude beyond what most programmers would consider feasible to rewrite themselves. You can certainly do better by shaving off features, both the MFC and the Winforms implementations have a lot of bells and whistles. Winforms more so, the basic reason it has so much more source code. This kind of feature support was however added with the express intent to provide a class library that you'd use instead of try to replace. Recommended.
MFC and WinForms are just Win Api wrappers so if they contain modern menus, Win Api must contain them too
This is not true. The basic menu handling code exists in the Win32 code libraries (basically user32.dll), and this enables you to create, draw, and handle messages to make the menus work, but they are very basic menus (just plain text). MFC works by calling the Win32 functions and handling the messages just as anyone else would, but it uses custom drawing routines to spice up how they look. And this is exactly how every other library does it. The only other way to do it is to draw the entire menu yourself (it's just another window), drawing any icons, handling the highlighting as the mouse moves over it, handling button clicks, etc, all yourself, which is a waste of time if you can get Win32 to do it.
So, if you want to have menus that look like that, you either have to code it yourself, or use a library that others have coded. It's as simple as that.
You probably have to implement it yourself, or use some 3rd party implementation.
See: How can i change the appearance of Windows 7 menus?
go to http://www.winprog.org/tutorial/simple_window.html you will find everything about window api programming tutorials
You'll need a 3rd party library such as CodeJock's Extreme Toolkit.
If you can't afford the budget, you may want to dig Code Project for some free source code.
i've been learning wpf for about a week now..
and i have a basic question:
From a business view and development view (out of your experience).. what can and what cant be done with wpf(capabilities) ..
please try to be illustrative..
examples of undesired answers:
"Fully functioning stand alone applications with alot of animation and Glittering images"
A second question:
if i build a XBAP UI for my application, can i make the UI "not show" in a browser!
if u r going to answer from tutorials/websites/books.. please dont copy paste them directly, try to write it in your own words...
You can host anything built to the Win32 GDI/USER API (WinForms, ActiveX controls) inside a WPF application, so even if you hit some limitation with an app that is mostly WPF, you can always host some old controls inside it.
And since 3.5 SP1 you can even host animated DirectX graphics pretty seamlessly as well (although WPF's 3D support provides its own much simpler ways of achieving the most commonly done things).
As for comparison, the major advantage of WPF over WinForms is the way it keeps closely to its own component-based model, so a very large proportion of controls are able to act as containers for other controls. Want to put a combo box in a menu item? Not sure why you would, but you can. More usefully, you can put a button in a list box (or tree view). These kinds of thing are not possible unless you implement every standard control from the ground up (which is what WPF does).
The disadvantages are probably temporary: it can be a little unstable on some machines (the rendering code seems vunerable to display driver incompatibility) but this gets better with each service pack. Also the text rendering has been heavily criticised - it goes a bit further with ClearType anti-aliasing than Windows normally does, so some people complain that it looks blurry.
(The reason these are likely to be temporary issues is that Microsoft's Visual Studio 2010 is adopting WPF. So they are now "eating their own dogfood".)
You can pretty much do anything in WPF that you'd need from a GUI app. But that's not the real benefit, IMHO.
One of the real benefits of WPF is development speed and simplicity, once you get past the learning curve (and there is a learning curve!)
The other major benefit, and probably the biggest one, is that it allows designers to work on the presentation, do lots of interactive things, all using a designer-friendly (friendlier, anyway) tool and not having to submit requests to the coders. Just by changing the .xaml, a designer can make an application look almost completely different, and add all kinds of behaviors (panels disappearing, expanding, all kinds of neat stuff). Without changing a line of code.
You can in theory do anything in WPF what you want. Compare it with a WinForms application. Is there anything that you can't build with that? Not really. The same goes for WPF. It's just that WPF is better suited for some things, like animations, video, graphics, etcetera. As it is xaml based, it is also better suited for databinding against XML for example.
See also this related question.
As for your second question, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean if you can show websites using WPF? Yes of course, just like WinForms.
Oh, in WPF some things are still not implemented. DataGridViews as popular example are only in the codeplex preview. YOu have alot of things like theExpander which work in a differnet way, and you can have a lot of problems with autosized content.
I also have a desktop application written in Windows Forms that is a middling size (a couple dozen major forms backed by 46 tables in the database). I'm thinking about rewriting the UI in WPF, but before I go there I was curious if there were any war stories about doing such a conversion.
I use LLBLGen to generate my low level data access objects, and I have a business logic layer above that. The forms are databound to the business logic objects, although the main form uses caching objects to minimize round trips on the more common navigation routes. The UI never speaks directly to the database: always through the UI -> business logic -> low level -> datastore path.
One control that I use heavily is the TreeView, which acts as a visual guide and short range navigation tool. The tree has been heavily customized with icons, highlight colors and it is the control I worry most about porting.
Is there a story that might convince me to go ahead and convert (or conversely, wait until Microsoft is closer to pulling the rug out from under Windows Forms)?
EDIT: I was asked in a comment what motivation for conversion I have. I have some concern about future proofing: I have 500,000 lines of code that were originally ASP and VBScript. We have been porting the functionality over time to ASP.NET and C#, but only as we make changes to the code. The upside is we have kept costs minimized, the downside is half the code remains ASP and VBScript. I'm concerned about a similar situation arising with Windows Forms applications.
Am I worried today about Windows Forms going away? Not even close to it... but the application is moving from ASP and VBScript to ASP.NET and C#, has nine years of history behind it, and probably won't be replaced this decade (instead, simply it will evolve). The desktop application is likewise a long term project with years of history.
For me, the WinForms vs. WPF decision is a simple one - if normal people are going to use it, the user interface can make the difference between a winner and a loser.
It is definitely a steep learning curve. But I have NEVER gotten done with a nice looking WPF application and said "Man, I should have used WinForms".
I'd say invest in the effort to make your UI better whenever possible for your customers, so yes to WPF if that's the case.
WPF has a ridiculously large learning curve. It will most likely require you to rewrite a lot more than you think for just changing the UI. Also, a lot of features that would make WPF nicer to use just aren't implemented or included in WPF yet. Unlike routeNpingme, I have written nice looking WPF applications and have said, "What a waste of time, I should have used Windows Forms and completed in 70% less time".
EDIT:
Also, unless Microsoft figures out a way to make WPF easier to learn, I don't see it catching on to the masses at all. WPF can do some very cool things, but a little effort to make it easy to understand instead of throwing stuff over the wall would have gone a long way. It would not surprise me in the slightest to see Microsoft drop WPF for something easier to work with in the not too distant future. So don't go changing your Windows Forms application just for the sake of changing it.
Pros:
Ridiculously easy data-binding (most of the time)
Ridiculously easy customization of look and feel
Cons:
Very steep learning curve
Some obvious bugs or issues. Similar to .NET 1.0 Windows Forms
Little or no tool support
In my opinion, WPF will definitely replace Windows Forms at some point. However, right now the tools are the main thing keeping it back. I disagree with Dunk that Microsoft will drop it for something else. Change it yes, but I think it's here to stay.
Should you change your application to use WPF now? No. Feel free to learn WPF but if your application works fine currently, then WPF won't give you anything extra. It just makes doing what is possible in Windows Forms much easier.
WPF is great. It is particularly good for extending controls like TreeView with customisations. You can add a string as an item in a TreeControl. You can also add a small panel containing an image and some text in various fonts and colours. Or you can add buttons, or anything you like. It has a completely general composability system. Same goes for ListBox, ComboBox, Button, etc. All their content or child items can be as simple as a string or as complex as a multipage document viewer with zoom buttons (if you want).
But the only way to find out is to try porting one of your forms. It shouldn't be too hard to make a WPF Window open from within your existing app. I started using WPF by making new GUI panels that were hosted inside a C++ Win32 application. Eventually it was so obvious that WPF was the way to go that we switched it around and made the outer shell WPF, with some ancient dialog boxes still implemented by the old C++ code where we couldn't be bothered to rewrite them (probably exactly what will happen with Visual Studio 2010).
Porting is a tough decision. So just some thoughts to help you decide.
WinForms is OK while you work by the rules and keep everything drawn as is. But even redrawing a border on some controls may require complex and precise work and skill, as you already know from tree customization. The same tasks can be done in a very elegant way in WPF.
Also, the data-binding in WPF saves me a lot of time. In the long term, you end up thinking about data-binding scenarios that could not be remotely possible in WinForms without special-case coding.
I do not even consider WinForms for new development -- there is no excuse for customization costs.
I have started introducing WPF elements within my WinForms application and so far have had a lot of success.
The application's main component is a grid control and I haven't yet found the text rendering of WPF sharp enough to present a table of important textual data.
But the application has several additional panels, and the majority of these are implemented using WPF. So, I'm going for a hybrid of WinForms and WPF via the ElementHost control.
I have found the flexibility of WPF to allow for a much more attractive and usable UI, and my users seem very happy with it. In my case, it's also been politically easier to introduce WPF one panel at a time.
WPF's main value to me is in the binding, not in the cooler UI. The worst WPF I've ever seen is when people use WPF just because it's newer, and put all the work in the code-behind, including not using binding. What you get is WinForms data management. So be sure you're going to use the wonderful binding when you do WPF.
I would port the OP's business logic to a business layer for ease of maintenance and conversion. I wouldn't port the WinForms to Xaml at all unless new Xaml functionality was needed, and preferably not until after the functionality was ported.