Using COM dll in C#

Question

We have COM dll which was written in C++ and has been used by the apps written in vb 6.0. My company plans write the newer versions of apps in .Net platform.

As far as the performance is concerned, when using a COM dll in a C# project, what should I choose from the 3 options listed below

1. Just adding the dll as a com reference
2. Writing a wrapper dll with C++/Cli
3. Generating a wrapper dll using TlbImp.exe

Or are there any other options?
Thanks.

Answer 1

Writing a wrapper in C++/CLI isn't that likely to be faster, the COM interop marshaller in the CLR is heavily optimized. It auto-generates machine code stubs from the interop library that you create when you add a reference to the COM server. A does a lot more work that's pretty invisible and very hard to do yourself, related to exceptions.

It makes sure that failure HRESULTs are properly converted to managed exceptions and that managed exceptions cannot leak into the COM server code. The "make it fast" resolve you'll have when you do this will make you cut corners like this. Now you've got something that's fast but unreliable. Getting a managed exception in unmanaged code is brutally hard to diagnose, all the context is gone.

Options 1 and 3 are the same thing. Both generate the interop library, the IDE simply runs the equivalent of Tlbimp for you.

The usual guidance applies here. Do the simple thing first, the interop library is incredibly simple. Only contemplate doing the really hard thing when you can actually measure perf problems and have a realistic idea what to do about it. I've never once seen anybody decide that a C++/CLI wrapper was necessary.

Answer 2

Option 2 is more performant, but not much, especially considering the DLL itself is in VB6.

Not sure if option 3 works at all.

I would personally use option 1, but just keep the interop somewhere safe so that I just keep reusing the same interop and not creating it everytime I add the reference.

Another option is to use new dynamic features and late binding (using Activator to create the object) but that is definitely less performant of all.