This paper provides the technical overview of .NET and COM interoperability. It describes how .NET components can communicate with existing COM components without migrating those COM components into .NET components, thus helping the migration cost and business systems. This paper also provides an overview of marshalling. The intended audience is a development team that wishes to interact with COM and .NET applications. (This paper assumes that the reader has the fundamental knowledge of COM and .NET)
From the time Microsoft engineers started working on the ideas behind COM in 1998, COM went through quite an evolution. Once .NET was released everything was about the CLR. Those business systems made lot of investments on those COM developments and they may not be willing to invest more money to build their components into .NET. Also this will make a severe impact in productivity.
Fortunately, switching from COM to .NET involves no such radical loss of productivity. The concept of providing bridge between .NET and COM components is .NET-COM interoperability. Microsoft .NET Framework provides system, tools, and strategies that enable strong integration with past technologies and allow legacy code to be integrated with new .NET components. It provides a bridge between the .NET and COM and vice versa.
There are two key concepts that make it much easier to move from COM development to .NET development, without any loss of code base or productivity.
- Interaction with COM components from .NET
- Interaction with .NET components from COM
Before going further, this paper will describe about the basic communication fundamentals of COM and .NET components.
Communication between Object and Client
COM is a binary reusable object which exposes its functionality to other components. When a client object asks for instances of server object, the server instantiates those objects and handout references to the client. So, a COM component can act as a binary contract between caller and callee. This binary contract is defined in a document known as Type library. The Type library describes to a potential client the services available from a particular server. Each COM components will expose a set of interfaces through which the communication between COM components will occurs.
The following diagram shows the communication between a client and a COM object.
Fig.1 Communication between client and a COM object
In the above figure the
IDispatch are the interfaces and
Release, etc., are the methods exposed by those interfaces.
The communication between the .NET objects occurs through Objects, there are no such interfaces for communication. So, in .NET component, there is no type libraries, instead they deal with assemblies. Assembly is a collection of types and resources that are built to work together and form a logical unit of functionality. All the information related to the assembly will be held in assembly metadata. Unlike the communication between COM components, the communication between .NET components is Object based.
Calling COM components from .NET Client
Generally COM components will expose interfaces to communicate with other objects. A .NET client cannot directly communicate with a COM component because the interfaces exposed by a COM component may not be read by the .NET application. So, to communicate with a COM component, the COM component should be wrapped in such a way that the.NET client application can understand the COM component. This wrapper is known as Runtime Callable Wrapper (RCW).
The .NET SDK provides Runtime Callable Wrapper (RCW) which wraps the COM components and exposes it into to the .NET client application.
Fig.2 calling a COM component from .NET client
To communicate with a COM component, there should be Runtime Callable Wrapper (RCW). RCW can be generated by using VS.NET or by the use of TlbImp.exe utility. Both the ways will read the type library and uses
System.Runtime.InteropServices.TypeLibConverter class to generate the RCW. This class reads the type library and converts those descriptions into a wrapper (RCW). After generating the RCW, the .NET client should import its namespace. Now the client application can call the RCW object as native calls.
When a client calls a function, the call is transferred to the RCW. The RCW internally calls the native COM function coCreateInstance there by creating the COM object that it wraps. The RCW converts each call to the COM calling convention. Once the object has been created successfully, the .NET client application can access the COM objects as like native object calls.
Calling .NET components from COM Client
When a COM client requests a server, first it searches in the registry entry and then the communication starts. Calling a .NET component from a COM component is not a trivial exercise. The .NET objects communicate through Objects. But the Object based communication may not be recognized by the COM clients. So, to communicate with the .NET component from the COM component, the .NET component should be wrapped in such a way that the COM client can identify this .NET component. This wrapper is known as COM Callable Wrapper (CCW). The COM Callable Wrapper (CCW) will be used to wrap the .NET components and used to interact with the COM clients.
CCW will be created by the .NET utility RegAsm.exe. This reads metadata of the .NET component and generates the CCW. This tool will make a registry entry for the .NET components.
Fig.3 calling a .NET component from COM client
Generally COM client instantiates objects through its native method
coCreateInstance. While interacting with .NET objects, the COM client creates .NET objects by
coCreateInstance through CCW.
coCreateInstance is called, the call will redirect to the registry entry and the registry will redirect the call to the registered server, mscoree.dll. This mscoree.dll will inspect the requested CLSID and reads the registry to find the .NET class and the assembly that contains the class and rolls a CCW on that .NET class.
When a client makes a call to the .NET object, first the call will go to CCW. The CCW converts all the native COM types to their .NET equivalents and also converts the results back from the .NET to COM.
Programming model comparison of .NET-COM interoperability
The following table compares the .NET and COM based component programming models.
Object based communication
Interface based communication
Garbage Collector to manage memory
Reference count will be used to manage memory
Type Standard objects
Binary Standard objects
Objects are created by normal new operator
Objects are created by
Exceptions will be returned
HRESULT will be returned
Object info resides in assembly files
Object info resides in Type library
Before the application starts to communicate, there are some technical constraints associated with this. When an object is transmitted to a receiver which is in a separate machine/process (managed/unmanaged) space, the object may need to undergo a transformation according to the native type to make it suitable for use by the recipient. That is the object will be converted into a recipient readable form. This process of converting an object between types when sending it across contexts is known as marshaling. The next section of the paper will gives an overview of marshalling in .NET.
Thus .NET runtime automatically generates code to translate calls between managed code and unmanaged code. While transferring calls between these two codes, .NET handles the data type conversion also. This technique of automatically binding with the server data type to the client data type is known as marshalling. Marshaling occurs between managed heap and unmanaged heap. For example, Fig.4 shows a call from the .NET client to a COM component. This sample call passes a .NET string from the client. The RCW converts this .NET data type into the COM compatible data type. In this case COM compatible data type is
BSTR. Thus the RCW converts the .NET string into COM compatible
BSTR will be passed to the object and the required calls will be made. The results will be returned to back to the RCW. The RCW converts this COM compatible result to .NET native data type.
Fig.4 Sample diagram for marshalling
Logically the marshalling can be classified into 2 types.
- Interop marshalling
- COM marshalling
If a call occurs between managed code and unmanaged code with in the same apartment, Interop marshaler will play the role. It marshals data between managed code and unmanaged code.
In some scenarios COM component may be running in different apartment threads. In those cases i.e., calling between managed code and unmanaged code in different apartments or process, both Interop marshaler and COM marshaler are involved.
When the server object is created in the same apartment of client, all data marshaling is handled by Interop marshaling.
Fig.5 Sample diagram for same apartment marshalling
COM marshaling involved whenever the calls between managed code and unmanaged code are in different apartments. For eg., when a .NET client (with the default apartment settings) communicates with a COM component (whichever developed in VB6.0), the communication occurs through proxy and stub because both the objects will be running in different apartment threads. (The default apartment settings of .NET objects are STA and the components which are developed by VB6.0 are STA). Between these two different apartments COM marshaling will occurs and with in the apartment Interop marshaling will occurs. Fig.6 shows this kind of marshaling.
This kind of different apartment communication will impact the performance. The apartment settings of the managed client can be changed by changing the STAThreadAttribute / MTAThreadAttribute / Thread.ApartmentState property. Both the codes can run in a same apartment, by making the managed code’s thread to STA. (If the COM component is set as MTA, then cross marshaling will occurs.)
Fig.6 Sample diagram for cross apartment marshalling
In the above scenario, the call with in different apartments will occur by COM marshaling and the call between managed and unmanaged code will occur by Interop marshaling.
Thus the communication between .NET applications and COM applications occurs through RCW and CCW.
As you have seen, COM applications can implement .NET types to achieve type compatibility or a .NET type can implement COM interfaces to achieve binary compatibility with related coclasses.
Although the managed clients can interact with the unmanaged objects, the managed client expects that the unmanaged object should act exactly the same as managed object.
When developing against the unmanaged component through COM interoperability, managed code developers will not be able to use some features of .NET like parameterized constructors, static methods, inheritance, etc., migrating an existing component or writing a managed wrapper will make the component easier to use for managed code developers. In some cases, the developer wants to migrate parts of the application to .NET so that application can take advantage of the new features that the .NET Framework offers. For example, ASP .NET provides advanced data binding, browser-dependent user interface generation, and improved configuration and deployment. The designer should evaluate when the value of bringing these new features in to the application outweigh the cost of code migration.
This member has not yet provided a Biography. Assume it's interesting and varied, and probably something to do with programming.