I'm working on a project in which the user will be able to change windows app icons through an application. Is it possible to have electron perform such a task or is it impossible for the electron framework to actually communicate with windows like that?
I sadly can't proof that but
I think it is possible. You could for example use Child Process and spawn processes that do things for you or write your own c/c++ modules. You can actually write c/c++ node functions, classes and so on, wrap them and use them in nodejs. Here to the Reference. Be aware though, if you don't find any pre-made solutions you have to do that for every operating system individual!
Related
I have found so many facility to use javascript, Angular, material design ui with Electron App Framework, I would like to know, is there any possibilities to use ANT UI for my desktop application? At-least some work around.
Yes
The short answer is yes. Electron provides an entire NodeJS environment and allows you to use common Node, Javascript and React toolsets.
In fact, Electron is listed as an officially supported environment on their Github page.
That being said, it's a very diverse library so there might be occurrences where a particular component is not supported or might need tweaking to be compatible with the Electron environment.
Update
The company I work for actually had to do this for a project we're working on so I can officially confirm that it works great.
In this article it says: "The Dart VM reads and executes source code, which means there is no compile step between edit and run.". Does that mean that you can exchange source-code on the fly in a running Dart system like in Erlang? Maybe the compiler is removed from the runtime system and then this is no longer possible. So that's why I'm asking.
Dart is run "natively" only in Dartium, which is a flavour of Chrome with DartVM. When you develop an application you still need to compile it it to JavaScript. This way you get fast development lifecycle and in the end you can compile code to JS. Because it's compiled code there is lots more room for compiler to run optimisations on the code. So from my perspective, the compiler is still there and I don't think you would be able to replace code at runtime.
You can send around source code and run it, but it would need to be in a separate isolate. Isolates do have some relationship to Erlang concepts.
The Dart VM doesn't support hot swapping (Called live edit in V8). However, based on mailing list discussions, it sounds like this is something that the authors do want to support in the future.
However, as the others have mentioned, it is possible to dynamically load code into another isolate.
tldr; at bottom.
Ok, so once again an interesting problem and I'm looking for a fun and interesting solution.
My current project involves being very modular, meaning the program functionality will be easily changed based on different modules and the program would adapt.
So I started out with the typical route, which is using DLL plugins. Now this is just way to normal, I want to think outside the box a bit.
The modules included in my program are long running campaigns that may take weeks to finish, and there will be many running at a time. So stability is a big issue, so I thought about what Google Chrome does. Processes, not DLLs or threads.
So I have a framework going and I need a way to get some information about each module (which are now EXEs). Now for my DLL framework I was exporting a "Register" function that would fill in some information.
So I thought to myself, hey EXEs can export functions, let's see if that actually works...It doesn't. I did some research into how Windows handles theses things and I don't feel like hacking the PE headers on the fly (but it's the out of the box kind of thinking I'm going for).
I'm planning on using named pipes and CLI parameters to transfer data between the main program and the module exe's. I could use that in a register fashion, but I want to here other peoples thoughts.
tldr: I'm using EXE's instead of DLL's for plugins. Looking for a way to easily export one time information like a exported "Register" function would on a DLL. Thoughts?
You might still consider having the modules written as DLLs with defined entrypoints (e.g., the Register function). Then you write the executable that loads the specified DLL. Your main application would fire off the driver executable and give it a name of a plugin DLL.
That way it is still easy to define and export the set of APIs that must be provided yet still run it as a separate process. The one executable that you write can load the specified DLL and then handle the necessary IPC with the main app.
You could define a protocol via the stdin/stdout, named pipes, sockets, etc.
I have successfully used 'plain' COM for several projects, and objects inheriting from TAutoObject. The bonusses here are IDL; the interopability with .Net, VBA and other non-Delphi things; and the fact that implementors still can choose wether to supply a DLL, an exe, an NT-service, and optionally run hosted over the network (COM+/DCOM). There may be several considerations you should handle about multi-threading and locking, but I found all that I needed to know online.
You can, of course, not use symbols exported by a (running) exe since it is running in another boundary. But, you can load an exe as an image (as you would do with a library) using LoadLibrary(Ex) and then, use the functions exported by the exe. I have tested (just for fun) when debugging PeStudio. See the snapshot below of chrome.exe loaded in the process space of PeStudio.exe using LoadLibrary.
As perhaps you know already, most probably the next version of Delphi will be cross-platform. Also, here are some polls on the matter.
While writing a cross-compiler isn't a thing which interests us very much now, porting a library which was/is Windows-tied to multiple platforms, certainly does.
You can think, for example at VCL (Delphi's standard library). While it was designed for Windows only, it has value in it, and, of course, there are huge codebases which depend on it.
The question is:
Which would be the best approach to made an application / library cross-platform aware ensuring a smooth conversion / upgrade path (as much as possible of course)?
I stress it again, we are not interested which is the best way to do cross-platform development only (there were questions on this theme). We are interested also in yet another requirement: The old code base / installations management.
PS: Experiences and/or methodologies from similar situations with other languages (eg. C/C++) which are regarded as standard practices are welcomed.
Thanks in advance.
Visual component developer's perspective:
Add levels of functionality to your code, so as to be able to add another platform without changing the "Core" of the component.
The compiler hopefully will have a platform switch. (Preferable more than one, working in conjunction with each other. ex. Windows/ARM, Windows/386, OSX/Cacao/386, Linux/Gnome/386).
The Layout structure might look something like this.
ComponentJ.pas
Linux\ComponentJ.pas
Linux\Gnome\ComponentJ.pas
Linux\KDE\ComponentJ.pas
OSX\ComponentJ.pas
386\ComponentJ.pas
ARM\ComponentJ.pas
As an Application Developer:
I'll start by moving all WIN API calls in my code into a group of libraries in a Windows directory as to be able to IFDEF it at library level and translate it into another platform I'd like to support as soon as the compiler becomes available, but only as I come across them.)
This will also add the possibility to add adapters easier for the new platforms.
It in any case is good practice to remove possible dependencies into a central place.
IMHO you can't build a xplatform Delphi and ensure a smooth transition for current VCL applications. It won't work. VCL was (luckily, because it allowed for great applications) designed with Windows in mind, and trying to design a compatible library working on a different platform would just mean longer development cycles and lots of compromises. The outcome will be a library noone would wish to use. Look at what happened to VCL.NET: it was the wrong choice. And it was working on the same OS!
We know that targeting non-Windows platform with native applications needs a native GUI library. We don't care about creating a GUI from scratch, for our application it's the way to go, we don't need Windows GUIs with all their standards under a different OS using different standards - we need to be able to code a fully native GUI for the target OS.
Other applications may survive a GUI porting, but in the long run you don't get a real xplatform tool - you get a tool that may compile for other platforms but brings one platform paradigms to others - and it will also be not welcome by "native" developers on other platforms. If you're a Linux or Mac developer, why should you learn how to work with a library that carries its Windows inheritance to your platform? You'd find it a pain in the ass. If Embarcadero wants to sell XDelphi outside actual developers base, it has to offer much more than a new CLX.
I will pull from some ancient experience in making a code base cross compilable between windows and dos (Delphi 1/Turbo Pascal 7). The rule of thumb was to separate code into multiple units. Try to code WITHOUT using windows, messages or any visual components. If you find you need to make a call to one of these, then place that call in another unit and write a proxy (abstract class that you descend from works well) to dispatch the calls through. When a cross compatible version is released, all that you should have to do is code the other side of the proxy for the new target.
If you're designing a form based system, then try to stick with as many of the standard components as possible. NEVER implement any "business" rules directly in an event, instead place them in another unit and call into the other unit to perform the logic.
Now, there will definitely be changes required to get your final project cross compatible, but by following these simple patterns you should be able to greatly reduce the amount of work it will take.
Experience so far has shown that the best way to get a Delphi app compatible with future versions is to stick to pure Delphi components, and use nothing third party. Such an app will probably suck, but that's how it seems to me. I use lots of third party components, and the apps are great and successful. But the chances of them moving to this future too are not certain, and that may cause problems with such changes, but I'd rather have a great app now and have the problem than have a poor app now and not need to worry about it.
Compromises should not be done too much to make VCL compatible with Linux and Mac. Windows is VCL's root. I'll prefer a new and very clean GUI framework, even though without any backward compatibility. Make VCL fatter and fatter isn't a good idea!
make a cross-platform Pascal compiler
make a cross-platform RTL
put the QT on top
Well, look at freepascal and lazarus
I don't get it. All .NET looks the same to me providing we don't use any third party.
Delphi using standard control is already fully functional but your app would look
like thousands of others.
I think Embar should go for PDA, IPhone, Andriod as Windows desktop already eat about
98% of the market.
Mac is expensive and Linux is no cost at all. No use to go for Mac and Linux. Not worth
the investment.
Well, aside the things said - thanks all - I do think that there we need some additional things:
we need tooling to do the necessary conversions
we need tooling to help us in programming against a (some form of) MVC pattern
Simply pick the latest 4.6 QT and add good integration betwen the Pascal and the QT library.
They have done it before (in the Kylix times). The QT is such powerfull these days.
I believe that QT is even better then VCL and at least 10 times more frequently updated and fixed.
So the plan is simple:
make a cross-platform Pascal compiler
make a cross-platform RTL
put the QT on top
and you will have a first-class natively looking applications on all platforms.
My opinion:
Make cross platform compiler (OS x/Linux/ embedded solutions?/ symbian?). Maybe add ability to compile/convert pascal code into portable c/c++ code to build then on embedded platforms.
RTL have to be separated into cross-platform layer and native layer (as for JCL).
Add new core components for cross-platform compatibility and native components for each supported platform (QT for ex)
Add translation utilities to create/convert between platform's components, for ex: to convert pure windows form into mac os x cocoa's form.
All windows hierarchy of components have to be only upgraded to support x64 with maximum backward compatibility. All cross-platform component have to be in parallel hierarchy.
Next version of cross platform solution can be refactored and can include migration/convertion utility. Due to minimum codebase of cross-platform solutions, hierarchy and classes for cross platform can be heavily changed from version to version to achieve best architecture.
sorry for my English - not a native language (Russian is)!
Make C/C++/Delphi compilers that targets OSX/Linux
Make C/C++ compiler that can be Boosted
Write new VCL-Presentation Foundation (VGScene/WPF alike)
it should not be backward compatibile! Delphi IDE should be
written with such VCL-PF
Component Library should stay as it is (but with improved Data-Binding)
Only provide VCL 64-bit for Win64
Is this a problem?
If I have a windows service on a server, what is 'best practise' for updating the service? (say there was a bug in it, or I need to ad more features to it).
Is there a way I could shutdown the service, patch it and get it up and running in a more automated way?
(any links with code would be great)
Well, you could always up the version on the installer (if you used one) and run that, from my experience it overlays old versions with the newer one.
Or you could simply shut down the service, copy in the new .exe (and dependencies if any) and start it back up. This could all be done with scripting and the NET start/stop functions I would imagine.
I'm sure there is a better way to do it than this though...
Depends how your service is written - monolith EXE - you'll need to stop and restart it using a process of choice e.g. Installer, Script + Service Control, batch and NET STOP/START etc.
If you structure it a little differently e.g. bootstrap EXE loading your service implementation as modules that can be unloaded/reloaded then you can have a different conversation. This is of course a quite a bit more complicated.
I've had some success in C# with a hosting solution like this, similar conversation here:
I want my C# Windows Service to automatically update itself
InstallShield supports Windows Services. Leveraging installers will make your task much simpler.