Skip to main content

The Benefits and Drawbacks of MFC

The goal of MFC is to make it as easy as possible for C++ developers to create robust Windows applications without sacrificing application performance. For that reason, the MFC class wrappers around the Windows API are, by design, wide and shallow. In other words, although it encapsulates many different APIs, the abstraction layer between the MFC classes and the native Win32 functions under the hood is noticeably thin. For example, the CWnd::SendMessage function does nothing more than call the SendMessage function exposed by the Windows API. Although this approach is frustrating to some developers—especially those who want to develop Windows-based applications without having to invest the time to understand the ins and outs of the Windows programming model—it is most often a good trade-off. It simplifies application development without selling out on speed. Of course, applications built using MFC will suffer some performance penalty compared to those built with the raw Windows API, but for robust, large-scale applications, the maintainability of MFC code more than makes up for any slowdown in speed.

Unfortunately, MFC support for OLE and COM doesn't follow the same model as its support for the Windows API. Although MFC's window classes contain a substantial number of inline wrappers (à la CWnd::SendMessage), its OLE classes aren't nearly as lightweight. As a result, MFC is less suited for middle-tier COM object development than it is for Windows development or even OLE development. Until recently, the COM limitations of MFC have been largely forgivable—ActiveX controls developed with MFC are perfectly adequate for use in end-user applications written in Visual Basic and MFC. And when it comes to traditional OLE support—OLE document servers, compound documents, containers, and so on—MFC is the best choice. However, the recent trend toward client/server Internet applications and the three-tier architecture described earlier has exposed two problems. First, even the smallest components created using MFC are generally considered too large for use within a Web browser, especially considering the time it takes to download the associated DLLs. Second, MFC is not well suited for creating server components that provide no user interface but must simultaneously support multiple threads of execution. Thus, whereas MFC still has something to offer future Windows applications, it falls short when it comes to developing COM objects in the business services tier.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MFC - Microsoft Foundation Classes Design Patterns

1 Introduction This paper describes the use of object-oriented software design patterns, as presented in Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software by Gamma et al., within the Microsoft Foundation Class Library (MFC). MFC is used for implementing applications for Microsoft Windows operating systems. Because of the size of the MFC library, a complete analysis would have been beyond the scope of this assignment. Instead, we identified various possible locations for design patterns, using the class hierachy diagram of MFC, and studied the source carefully at these locations. When we did not find a pattern where we expected one, we have documented it anyway, with examples of how the particular problem could have been solved differently, perhaps more elegantly, using design patterns. We have included a brief introduction to MFC in Section 2 , as background information. The analysis has been split into three parts, with one section for each major design pattern ca...
1 comment
Read more

Explain Polymorphism and Flavors of Polymorphism...

Polymorphism is the ability of different objects to react in an individual manner to the same message. This notion was imported from natural languages. For example, the verb "to close" means different things when applied to different objects. Closing a door, closing a bank account, or closing a program's window are all different actions; their exact meaning is determined by the object on which the action is performed. Most object-oriented languages implement polymorphism only in the form of virtual functions. But C++ has two more mechanisms of static (meaning: compile-time) polymorphism: Operator overloading. Applying the += operator to integers or string objects, for example, is interpreted by each of these objects in an individual manner. Obviously, the underlying implementation of += differs in every type. Yet, intuitively, we can predict what results are. Templates. A vector of integers, for example, reacts differently from a vector of string objects when it receives ...
17 comments
Read more

• Why might you need exception handling be used in the constructor when memory allocation is involved?

Your first reaction should be: "Never use memory allocation in the constructor." Create a separate initialization function to do the job. You cannot return from the constructor and this is the reason you may have to use exception handling mechanism to process the memory allocation errors. You should clean up whatever objects and memory allocations you have made prior to throwing the exception, but throwing an exception from constructor may be tricky, because memory has already been allocated and there is no simple way to clean up the memory within the constructor.
Post a Comment
Read more