views:

208

answers:

4

I have some old C 32 Bit DLLs that are using Oracle's Pro C precompiler library (proc.exe) to expose a hundred or so sproc/func calls to an even older VB6 GUI which references these functions through explicit Declare statements like so:

Declare Function ConnectToDB Lib "C:\windows\system32\EXTRACT32.DLL" (CXN As CXNdets, ERR As ERRdets) As Long

All the structures in the C header files are painstakingly replicated in the VB6 front end. At least the SQL is precompiled.

My question is, is it worth trying to impose a .Net interface (by conversion to an assembly) onto the the C code and upgrade the VB6 to C# or do you think I should just abandon the whole thing and start from scratch. As always, time is of the essence hence my appeal for prior experience. I know that if I keep the Declares in .Net I will have to add lots of complicated marshalling decorations which I'd like to avoid.

I've never had to Convert C to .Net before so my main question if everything else is ignored is are there any porting limitations that make this inadvisable?

+3  A: 

... At least the SQL is precompiled.

Is this the only reason you've got code in C? If so, my advice is to abandon that and simply rewrite the entire thing in C# (or even VB6 if that's what your app is written in) ... unless you've profiled it and can prove a measurable difference, you won't be getting any perf benefits from having sql/sproc calls in C. You will only get increased maintenance costs due to the complexity of having to maintain this interop bridge.

Joel Martinez
No there are lots of financial calculations on securities in there too though I take your point about seperating the SQL. It's not been designed to maintain. Any changes in the front end have to be propogated all the way through.
MaSuGaNa
Rewriting is always superficially attractive - the new code will be so much better! - and often very risky.
MarkJ
+2  A: 

You should continue to use the DLL in .NET by creating an assembly around the Declares. That one assembly probably would go a little quicker in VB.NET than C#. Then have your new UI reference that assembly. Once you have that going then you have bought yourself time to convert the C code into .NET. You do this by initially keeping the assembly and replacing the the declares with new .NET code. Soon you will have replaced everything and can refactor it to a different design.

The time killer is breaking behavior. The closer you can preserve the behavior of the original application the faster the conversion will be. Remember there nothing wrong with referencing a traditional DLL. .NET is built on many layers of APIs which ultimately drill down to the traditional DLLs that continue to be used by Windows. Again once you have the .NET UI working then you have more time to work on the core and bring everything into .NET.

RS Conley
+1. Any decent upgrade tool (hint - not from Microsoft) will sort out the `Declare` statements for you at the click of a button. Another time killer is *testing that you haven't broken behaviour*. I believe that is the major effort on large conversion jobs.
MarkJ
+1  A: 

I always advise extreme caution before setting out to rewrite anything. If you use a decent tool to upgrade the VB6 to .NET, it will convert the Declare statements automatically, so don't stress about them too much!

It's a common pitfall to start out optimistically rewriting a large piece of software, make good early progress fixing some of the well-known flaws in the old architecture, and then get bogged down in the functionality that you've just been taking for granted for years. At this point your management begin to get twitchy and everything can get very uncomfortable. I have been there and it's no fun. Sounds like your users are already twitchy, which is a bad sign.

...and here's a blog post by a Microsofty that agrees with me:

Many companies I worked with in the early days of .NET looked first at rewriting driven in part by a strong desire to improve the underlying architecture and code structures at the same time as they moved to .NET. Unfortunately many of those projects ran into difficulty and several were never completed. The problem they were trying to solve was too large

...and some official advice from Microsoft UK regarding migrating from VB6 to .NET

Performing a complete rewrite to .NET is far more costly and difficult to do well [than converting] ... we would only recommend this approach for a small number of situations.

Maybe your program is small, and you have a great understanding of the problems it solves, and you are great at estimating accurately and keeping your projects on track, and it will all be fine.

MarkJ
+1 Thanks Mark have downloaded ArtinSoft's convertor for a peek.
MaSuGaNa
+1  A: 

If you move from VB6 to VB.net or C#, throw away the C code and use the appropriate ODP.net classes or LINQ to access those stored procedures. Since the C layer (as I understand it) has no logic other than exposing the stored procedures, it's not useful anymore after the switch. By doing that, you get (at least) much better exception handling (i.e. exceptions at all instead of magic return codes), maintainability etc.

See also: Automatically create C# wrapper classes around stored procedures

ammoQ