469,592 Members | 1,777 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,592 developers. It's quick & easy.

Compileing to diffrent file extensions

Hi everyone,

What I am doing in my application is I have a base app, then a bunch of
plug-in dll files. Well this gets confuseing to diferentiate between the
real plug-ins and the actual link libraries that are not to be used as
plugins (in reality they are both DLL files) is there anyway I could make
VS.NET compile my VB.NET DLL plug-in projects into a diffrent extension but
still be DLL files? (i dont feel like changeing tens of extensions by hand
each build) I'd like the extension to be something like .bdbPlugin instead
of .DLL for the plug-ins so i could also associate a file type with them and
give them custom icons with the file type association in windows... thanks!
Nov 20 '05 #1
11 1175
* "Brian Henry" <brianiup[nospam]@adelphia.net> scripsit:
What I am doing in my application is I have a base app, then a bunch of
plug-in dll files. Well this gets confuseing to diferentiate between the
real plug-ins and the actual link libraries that are not to be used as
plugins (in reality they are both DLL files) is there anyway I could make
VS.NET compile my VB.NET DLL plug-in projects into a diffrent extension but
still be DLL files? (i dont feel like changeing tens of extensions by hand
each build) I'd like the extension to be something like .bdbPlugin instead
AFAIS, you cannot do that, and I would not do it. Choose a name like
"MySample1.PlugIn.dll" or something like that.
of .DLL for the plug-ins so i could also associate a file type with them and
give them custom icons with the file type association in windows... thanks!


Did you ever see that for another application? I don't see much sense
in hiding the user the fact that the file actually contains code that
can be executed.

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
Nov 20 '05 #2
many applications do this to distinguish the different types of libraries
they may have created... it's a lot more prevelant in C++, which I am use to
doing it there. VB.NET seems to have more of a strangle on what you compile
files into. In C++ a lot of files that we and other companies make are
really compiled DLL files passed off as a diffrent type (AOL, Adobe, and MS
do this for some file types) to name a few.
"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:2g************@uni-berlin.de...
* "Brian Henry" <brianiup[nospam]@adelphia.net> scripsit:
What I am doing in my application is I have a base app, then a bunch of
plug-in dll files. Well this gets confuseing to diferentiate between the
real plug-ins and the actual link libraries that are not to be used as
plugins (in reality they are both DLL files) is there anyway I could make VS.NET compile my VB.NET DLL plug-in projects into a diffrent extension but still be DLL files? (i dont feel like changeing tens of extensions by hand each build) I'd like the extension to be something like .bdbPlugin instead

AFAIS, you cannot do that, and I would not do it. Choose a name like
"MySample1.PlugIn.dll" or something like that.
of .DLL for the plug-ins so i could also associate a file type with them
and give them custom icons with the file type association in windows...

thanks!
Did you ever see that for another application? I don't see much sense
in hiding the user the fact that the file actually contains code that
can be executed.

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>

Nov 20 '05 #3
* "Brian Henry" <brianiup[nospam]@adelphia.net> scripsit:
many applications do this to distinguish the different types of libraries
they may have created... it's a lot more prevelant in C++, which I am use to
doing it there. VB.NET seems to have more of a strangle on what you compile
files into. In C++ a lot of files that we and other companies make are
really compiled DLL files passed off as a diffrent type (AOL, Adobe, and MS
do this for some file types) to name a few.


Basically, that should not be a problem for .NET assemblies too, but VS
doesn't support changing the extension of the output. All you can do is
writing an add-in that creates a copy of the DLL with the new name after
completing the build. I didn't test it, but it may work.

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
Nov 20 '05 #4
On 14 May 2004 17:00:52 +0200, Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote:

Did you ever see that for another application? I don't see much sense
in hiding the user the fact that the file actually contains code that
can be executed.


Lots of apps do this. Just look at Windows Screen savers. They have a
..scr extension, but are nothing more than .dlls.

Also in Windows, control panel applets. They have an extension of .cpl but
are just a .dll.

How about PhotoShop plugins. They have different extensions (.8bf for
example), but are just .dll's

That's a very common thing to do, but I like your suggestion about the
naming, though.

The only way I can think to do it with .Net would be to use a custom build
action in a setup project that renames the file.
--
Chris

To send me an E-mail, remove the "[", "]", underscores ,lunchmeat, and
replace certain words in my E-Mail address.
Nov 20 '05 #5
* Chris Dunaway <"dunawayc[[at]_lunchmeat_sbcglobal[dot]]net"> scripsit:
Did you ever see that for another application? I don't see much sense
in hiding the user the fact that the file actually contains code that
can be executed.
Lots of apps do this. Just look at Windows Screen savers. They have a
.scr extension, but are nothing more than .dlls.


They are executables...
Also in Windows, control panel applets. They have an extension of .cpl but
are just a .dll.


ACK.

;-)

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
Nov 20 '05 #6
still supports my cause though :P
"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:2g************@uni-berlin.de...
* Chris Dunaway <"dunawayc[[at]_lunchmeat_sbcglobal[dot]]net"> scripsit:
Did you ever see that for another application? I don't see much sense
in hiding the user the fact that the file actually contains code that
can be executed.


Lots of apps do this. Just look at Windows Screen savers. They have a
.scr extension, but are nothing more than .dlls.


They are executables...
Also in Windows, control panel applets. They have an extension of .cpl but are just a .dll.


ACK.

;-)

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>

Nov 20 '05 #7
On 14 May 2004 21:27:02 +0200, Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote:
Lots of apps do this. Just look at Windows Screen savers. They have a
.scr extension, but are nothing more than .dlls.


They are executables...


I knew this. I guess my fingers type faster than my brain thinks!

--
Chris

To send me an E-mail, remove the "[", "]", underscores ,lunchmeat, and
replace certain words in my E-Mail address.
Nov 20 '05 #8
Hi,

Under project settings have a look at Linker, and under the General tab
there's an 'Output File' field. Change the extension to whatever you fancy.

Steve

"Brian Henry" <brianiup[nospam]@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:e2*************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Hi everyone,

What I am doing in my application is I have a base app, then a bunch of
plug-in dll files. Well this gets confuseing to diferentiate between the
real plug-ins and the actual link libraries that are not to be used as
plugins (in reality they are both DLL files) is there anyway I could make
VS.NET compile my VB.NET DLL plug-in projects into a diffrent extension but still be DLL files? (i dont feel like changeing tens of extensions by hand
each build) I'd like the extension to be something like .bdbPlugin instead
of .DLL for the plug-ins so i could also associate a file type with them and give them custom icons with the file type association in windows... thanks!

Nov 20 '05 #9
no clue what you're talking about here, there is no linker properties in
VB.NET project settings... and the only output file field i see is a static
field
"Steve McLellan" <sjm.NOSPAM AT fixerlabs DOT com> wrote in message
news:Oo***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Hi,

Under project settings have a look at Linker, and under the General tab
there's an 'Output File' field. Change the extension to whatever you fancy.
Steve

"Brian Henry" <brianiup[nospam]@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:e2*************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Hi everyone,

What I am doing in my application is I have a base app, then a bunch of
plug-in dll files. Well this gets confuseing to diferentiate between the
real plug-ins and the actual link libraries that are not to be used as
plugins (in reality they are both DLL files) is there anyway I could make VS.NET compile my VB.NET DLL plug-in projects into a diffrent extension

but
still be DLL files? (i dont feel like changeing tens of extensions by hand each build) I'd like the extension to be something like .bdbPlugin instead of .DLL for the plug-ins so i could also associate a file type with them

and
give them custom icons with the file type association in windows...

thanks!


Nov 20 '05 #10
* "Brian Henry" <br**********@newsgroups.nospam> scripsit:
no clue what you're talking about here, there is no linker properties in
VB.NET project settings... and the only output file field i see is a static
field


That's simply not supported. VB.NET will always take the assembly name
+ ".dll" or ".exe" (depending on the project type) for the output.

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
Nov 20 '05 #11
Addendum:
no clue what you're talking about here, there is no linker properties in
VB.NET project settings... and the only output file field i see is a static
field


That's simply not supported. VB.NET will always take the assembly name
+ ".dll" or ".exe" (depending on the project type) for the output.


I had a quick look at the CTP March 2004 version of Whidbey and I didn't
find an option to do that there too ;-(.

--
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
<URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
Nov 20 '05 #12

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

2 posts views Thread by Brian Henry | last post: by
3 posts views Thread by Shapper | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by antonyliu2002 | last post: by
reply views Thread by Adam Salisbury | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.