I need to call some .NET code from Excel 2007, and I'm searching for the best way.
The official "Microsoft-sanctioned" method seems to involve Visual Studio 2008 Professional, but I don't have that. I have VS2005, but that plus VSTO 2005 SE can only do application-level add-ins, not document-level macros.
The problem involves some analysis code that comes as .NET assemblies; I'd like to manipulate it by changing some cells in an Excel worksheet.
Any other ideas?
You could expose your .net objects as COM objects, then call them from VBA...
The last post in this link has some code:
http://bytes.com/groups/ms-access/205532-calling-c-net-dll-vba
You could use Excel-DNA - an independent open-source project to integrate .NET into Excel. It allows creation of Excel add-ins, including high-performance user-defined functions, using managed code. It needs only .NET 2.0 or higher, so your VS 2005 will be fine.
(Disclaimer: I'm the developer of Excel-DNA.)
You can (easily) call any COM components from VBA; you can also (less easily) call other DLLs etc. - even system DLLs.
If you create a COM wrapper for your .NET DLLs you'd be able to call those from VBA. You can do that with VS2005, but the amount of work involved will depend on the complexity of the DLLs' API.
Related
I'm a bit confused about what I can use to develop for: It's a soup of letters: VBA, VSTO, Interop, etc... I'm in need in develop a MS Project 2013 control. So, what can I use to develop it? I prefer develop in C#, but if it isn't possible, I can develop VBA anyways...
Maybe I can help a little bit with the soup of letters. VBA is the oldest technology in your list. It is primarily used for scripting (automating) things in MS Project based on old visual basic operations on the MS Project object model. It typically works inside a specific MS Project file. VSTO is the modern version of VBA that Microsoft introduced to take advantage of .NET. It is still file-centric, but now you can use a modern object-oriented language like C# or VB.NET to write your control. A third approach is to write a separate .NET application that can work with any MS Project file. An example of this is the COM-Addin approach. A COM Addin is C# or VB.NET application that you compile and package separately. Then you register the Add In on the machine so that MS Project knows about it and calls it when needed.
Both VSTO and COM Addins are written in .NET, whereas MS Project only speaks COM. Thus both rely on the Microsoft COM-Interop libraries when they talk to MS Project. These libraries are called 'Primary Interop Assemblies' and they enable the translation between COM calls and .NET calls.
There's a comprehensive book on all of this by Andrew Whitechapel called Microsoft® .NET Development for Microsoft Office. It's no longer sold directly on Amazon, but you can still find it through other sellers. I've left out a few other related techniques that you can find in Andrew's book. Another expert is Rod Gill. He's written a book called VBA Programming for MS Project '98 through 2010 with an Introduction to VSTO. It's more VBA-centric than Andrew's book, but you may find it helpful. I'd recommend that you Google Andrew and Rod and also Misha Schneerson, formerly at Microsoft. Both Andrew and Misha have moved on to other technologies now, but you'll find that they give you good cookbooks for doing this sort of thing.
Hope this helps.
Recently Microsoft introduced the Office Add-ins architecture which allows for developing add-ins hosted remotely and run within IFrames inside office. I have read a lot trying to understand whether this architecture is meant as a replacement for VSTO or do they have separate use-cases. VS 2015 has templates for both.
In my specific case, I want to develop an add-in that extends Excel 2016 with custom import functionality (e.g. custom CSVs, TSV, or even XLSX). I can't tell which type of project I should go with.
Given the amount of legacy applications developed as COM and VSTO add-ins I find it hard to believe Microsoft would drop support within the next 10 years.
For me the most important differentiators of one approach vs. the other are:
COM/VSTO Office add-ins
Access to complete object model
Local machine interaction, e.g. file system
Available on Windows since Office 2007
JavaScript Office Add-ins
Portable between Windows, OS X, iOS etc. (not complete everywhere yet though)
Easy integration with online services
Easy distribution, no need to worry about installers
In your case I'd ask myself these questions:
Will there be a need to support other platforms besides Windows in the future? > JavaScript API
Are the requirements covered by the current JavaScript API implementation?
I've found that VSTO isn't 100% implemented either. I've given up developing VSTO for Project, got hit by too many issues. Instead I've developed everything in VBA and have perfected some neat ways to install, distribute and update VBA macros.
I plan on developing Excel Add-ins and I have looked around on ways of getting it accomplished. What I have found from expert views on various forums whom suggest using third party XLL development environments (XLW, ExcelDNA and host of others) instead of Excel SDK development 2007 with C++ as the latter option requires steep learning curve and for novices such as me would require managing low level details such as memory management
So my question is whether the XLL produced or developed using the 3rd party tools (XLW, ExcelDNA) would run on users Windows system that do not have .net runtime support. There are only 1 or 2 sample tutorials on the web about development of XLL with Excel 2007 SDK using Visual Studio.net and users comments on those tutorials suggest that an XLL developed in Visual Studio.net using Excel 2007 SDK are not runnable on Windows that do not have .net runtime
If you develop your add-in with C# or VB.NET (either with Excel-DNA or XLW), it will require the .NET runtime to be present on the client machines. If you develop the add-in with C++ (with XLW or another C+-based toolkit like XLL+) your add-in will not require the .NET runtime.
By default XLW uses the dynamically linked C runtime so you need to be sure the target machine has the appropriate version. http://xll.codeplex.com uses static linking so you can be sure your xll will run on any Windows machine.
It seems if you try to reference the Office COM objects (as you would do in other development environments), Visual Studio gets it wrong - and it just won't work.
So you must use the converted type library that Microsoft hand-converted and makes available for download, and download, and download.
Now it seems that in order for my application to run it needs the Office Interop code, which is contained in an assembly.
Now i don't want to force my customers to install the Office 2007 Primary Interop Assemblies, Office 2003 Primary Interop Assemblies or the Office XP Primary Interop Assemblies. i want an xcopy deployment.
If i manage to get a hold of Microsoft's copy of the interop assemblies, can i just copy them to by Bin/Debug and Bin/Release folders?
If i include the Office 2007 interop assemblies, will it work if the customer has Office 95 installed, or do i have to include all versions of the Office Interop dll's Microsoft has ever published?
This is a common question with a rather complicated answer. Mary Lee of MSFT is a great resource for information about this:
http://blogs.msdn.com/vsto/archive/tags/Deployment/default.aspx
Using ClickOnce to deploy is the closest you are going to get to an XCopy install of any application built on VSTO.
Also, check this post:
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vsto/thread/1666d2b0-a4d0-41e8-ad86-5eab3542de1e/
Finally, Misha has a great blog:
http://blogs.msdn.com/mshneer/archive/2006/01/05/deployment-articles.aspx
The PIAs are specific to the version of Office you are targeting, so the 2003 PIAs are necessary for targeting 2003 and the 2007 PIAs are necessary for 2007. Automating Office 95 via managed code is something I have not done before, but I can imagine you are directly referencing the type libraries so a RCW is generated for you and has nothing to do with PIAs.
HTH
Colby Africa (MSFT)
From my own experience:
If you wanted to target Office 2003 and above, then you'd use the Office 2003 PIAs - and limit yourself to the Office 2003 API. The code would run on Office 2003 or later. You could still call Office 2007 functions using reflection, but that's not pleasant.
I imagine it's much the same story if your baseline version is Office 2000 - though I've not tried it, and I believe the earliest version for which Microsoft themselves provide PIAs is Office 2002 (XP).
You can create your own Interop assemblies for 2000, and I've no reason to believe that you can't do it for '95, though you're the first person I've ever seen ask for '95 support! It goes without saying that if you create your own Interop assemblies you'll need to deploy them with your application.
In any case, you want to use the highest Office version you can get away with as your baseline, so that you can support as many features as you can without resorting to reflection. You should develop your code on a machine which has only that version of Office installed.
In my case, I develop for Office 2003 and know that my users also have 2003. So, I ask them to ensure that they have the ".NET Programmability Support" feature enabled (which you can do via Office 2003 Setup via Add/Remove Programs if you choose the Change option). That option basically installs the PIAs to the GAC. For those users that can't do this, my setup program detects the lack of the PIAs and installs them prior to installing my application (as it does for the .NET framework).
XCOPY deployment? Yes, I'd like that too - but forget it. For one thing, if your add-in is going to work in 'high' security mode, then you're going to need a code-signed COM 'shim' to sit between your code and Office, and that needs to be registered. I believe VSTO provides its own shim, if you choose to go down that path (I didn't, since I needed to be able to 'drive' Office from scratch rather than relying on the user to start the application).
Deployment - and dealing with the installation & security issues - is one of the hardest parts of Office Add-in development with .NET, and it's a real kicker that it comes right at the end when you thought you were done.
My strong advice is to save yourself days and weeks of hassle, and look at Add-in Express. I've only recently come across this myself, and have been kicking myself ever since because it could have saved me so much time. It has several benefits that I think would be useful to you:
It allows you to create a single add-in targetting Office 2000 to Office 2007 (sorry, not '95), regardless of what version you happen to have on your development PC.
It creates an installer for you (which even works on Vista!), which in itself is worth the price.
It comes with its own COM shim, and is integrated to the extent that you don't need to worry about it.
It will allow you to have a single add-in that has a menu/toolbar interface in Office versions up to 2003, but a ribbon interface in 2007.
Note that I have no affiliation with Add-in Express (other than as a recent customer), but equally I've not yet converted my projects over to using it. The initial tests that I have done lead me to believe it's pretty good - and definitely the way to go for small to medium projects.
If i manage to get a hold of Microsoft's copy of the interop assemblies, can i just copy them to by Bin/Debug and Bin/Release folders?
It worked for me. When I compiled the program I had it reference the interop (PIA) dlls in the bin and then deployed it that way to the customer.
If i include the Office 2007 interop assemblies, will it work if the customer has Office 95 installed?
No, you mst have the interop dlls for the version of Word you are targeting. I suppose it might be possible to write your code so that it chcks the version of word running on that machine and at runtime chooses the correct interop, but you need to include them all.
Is VBA going to go away any time soon, like VB6 has? Should I not develop new Office applications with VBA? Or should I be developing all new Office Apps with VSTO?
Update: Recently read this article.
Office VSTO offers a great deal of additional functionality over Office VBA, and while I don't believe Microsoft has signaled that it's going to terminate VBA (in fact, they've said explicitly that it will be around at least until Office 14; Office 2007 = Office 12), I think it's well worth the effort to move your applications to VSTO to take advantage of the additional flexibility and power.
I actually don't think that deprecating VBA would be feasible, since a fair amount of Office programming takes place at the macro level by business users and I don't think that's going to go away any time soon. Those folks don't generally have access to a VSTO-capable IDE.
VSTO has new features, but also has a number of major deficiencies compared with VBA.
For one thing, Code Access Security can make it difficult to deploy VSTO applications (that's being polite).
For another, the VSTO development environment is nowhere near as accessible to "Power User" developers as VBA. For example, no macro recorder to get you started.
And a big showstopper is that .NET interop with out-of-process COM objects doesn't work well. For example, if you want to manipulate other Office applications (Word, PowerPoint, Outlook) from within an Excel VSTO application, you will find multiple copies of these applications running in the background, for the reasons described in this KB article.
All this coupled with the huge investment in existing VBA apps means VBA won't be going away any time soon.
Microsoft has stated that VBA will be supported moving forward for the forseeable future, but they are also recommending that new apps use VSTO.
The latest Mac version of MS Office don't support VBA, and 64-bit Windows runs it in a virtual 32-bit out-of-process mode. So if you are planning a new application using Office as a platform, VSTO is definitely the way to go, but you shouldn't worry too much about legacy support.
As #cori points out, it would be a big marketing no-no for MS to just yank support and break so much existing software.
Microsoft have been dropping hints at a managed-code version of Office with an integrated VSTO (presumably in the same way as the VB6 IDE is integrated for VBA, so the VS IDE would be integrated for VSTO) ever since .NET was first released.
Given just how much coding is involved - and given that this would not produce any features that would be visible to users - I very much doubt that this is high on the Microsoft priority list. I can imagine that they layer a managed code set of objects over the top of the existing codebase (much as Joel Spolsky layered a set of COM objects over the existing C codebase when putting VBA into Excel in the first place) and bung a new IDE in as the default, while hiding the old one. Even that would be a major exercise (imagine writing the macro recorder!). Of course, this would make .NET a pre-req for Office, which the Office team will only accept at gunpoint.
They will never actually remove VBA from the products, of course - Excel still supports Excel 4 macros, and Word still has the WordBasic Automation object to support Word 6 macros, and there's no sign of either of those being removed, since there is too much legacy code to support - and no-one has used either of those coding models in a decade.
If Microsoft do ever put a .NET environment into Office (which, frankly, I doubt will ever happen), then they might stop adding VBA support for new Office features. That's the closest they'll get to discontinuing VBA.
Here is a comment from Microsoft regarding future VBA support. In a nutshell, it is not going away on Windows versions of Office (but is discontinued for Mac versions).
VBA is a long way from being depreciated, in fact VBA is to be reintroduced into the next version of Office on the MAC ( http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2008/may08/05-13MacBU2008PR.mspx).
For most people on the ground, VBA and C XLLs (and VB6!!) continue to be the tools of choice. The current .NET linkages are slow and offer zero productivity gain. 3rd part tools such as ExcelDNA ease the pain somewhat but obviously the unmanaged C based (and assembler based) code base of Office doesn't sit easily with .NET.
VBA add-ins are a bit troublesome to deploy, but VSTO is even more so. Also, VSTO involves a bit of overhead, as it needs to start up the CLR before running your code.
But most important of all; VSTO takes away the pain of writing VBA.