tags:

views:

1067

answers:

3

This is an extension of a question I previously asked here.

Long story short, I dynamically load a DLL and make a type out of it with the following code:

Assembly assembly = Assembly.LoadFile("C:\\test.dll");
Type type = assembly.GetType("test.dllTest");
Activator.CreateInstance(type);

From there I can use type to reference virtually anything in the dllTest class. The class by default when ran should bring up a form (in this case, fairly blank, so it's not complex).

I feel like I'm missing a key line of code here that's keeping the form from loading on the screen.

dllTest.cs (within the DLL) consists of:

namespace test
{
    public partial class dllTest : Form
    {
        public dllTest()
        {
            InitializeComponent();
        }
    }
}

InitializeComponent() sets up the layout of the form, which is far too long to paste here and shouldn't make a difference.

Any ideas?

+6  A: 

You have to do something with the form you've just created:

Assembly assembly = Assembly.LoadFile("C:\\test.dll");
Type type = assembly.GetType("test.dllTest");
Form form = (Form)Activator.CreateInstance(type);
form.ShowDialog(); // Or Application.Run(form)
Juanma
lol I guess the solution is apparent!
Quintin Robinson
Thank you - worked perfectly.
scrot
+2  A: 

Yes, you aren't actually specifying any code to run outside the class initializer. For instance, with forms you have to actually show them.

You could modify your code to the following...

Assembly assembly = Assembly.LoadFile("C:\\test.dll");
Type type = assembly.GetType("test.dllTest");
Form form = Activator.CreateInstance(type) as Form;
form.ShowDialog();
Quintin Robinson
If I could mark two answers right, I would. Thank you.
scrot
No problem at all.
Quintin Robinson
A: 

I would go with:

Assembly assembly = Assembly.LoadFile("C:\\test.dll");
Type type = assembly.GetType("test.dllTest");
object obj = Activator.CreateInstance(type);
Form form = obj as Form;
if (form != null)
    form.Show(); //or ShowDilaog() whichever is needed

Other error checking/handling should be added; however at the very least I would ensure the conversion works.

Timothy Carter
If you just want to do the null check, the extra object reference isn't needed you could get rid of obj and do the as cast directly on the createinstance.
Quintin Robinson
Depending on what your plan is in case of failure, you certainly can do that and eliminate a line of code. But if the check fails you plan to do/try something else with the object, then it needs to be done in separate lines.
Timothy Carter
Agreed, but in the second case I think you would delegate to a more pragmatic approach rather then an optimistic form cast and then a failsafe switch inline.
Quintin Robinson
Right I guess my main point was to ensure that error checking was addressed somewhere in this response chain. Obviously code posted here is not going to be production worthy robust, but I wanted it at least mentioned to a passerby in the future that some form of error checking should be added. And not to just assume the type you got is the type you thought it would be. If you can guarantee the type at compile time, why not reference the assembly and use the object; skip reflections altogether.
Timothy Carter
Like I said before.. agreed. Often text is so informal sincerity is easily lost.
Quintin Robinson