Hi, My name is Roberto, I'm an Italian programmer.
I've realized a managed version of DirectX10 for my personal needs (expecially for the next DirectX11 release).
So this month I've maden test and realised this library.
The library contains all DirectX10 component (except for ID3D10DataLoader and ID3D10DataProcessor). I prefered to mantain the same structure as native DirectX10 API (static constructor for class, same name of method).
Now I offer my library to comunity.
Please tell me any problem expecially bugs and missed features.
Tell me also if some class do not respect name convention that I've used (if you see some underscore, some ID3D prefix, some not clever word)

http://www.notjustcode.it/cms/ManagedProject.aspx

Thank you

Any reason you chose to roll your own instead of utilizing SlimDX? They have a small team of developers and always have their library updated within days of a new DirectX SDK drop. If you're doing managed code and want to keep up with the latest DirectX has to offer, I'd highly recommend using their library.

SlimDX is an excellent library and support a lot of tecnology rather than DirectX10.
But I wanted something identically to native DirectX and I have tried to do it.
The only different things that I've maden is for Map and for asincronous loading (mantaining pointer in a class).
SlimDX miss some features (like 10.1 support)

RobyDX:

SlimDX is an excellent library and support a lot of tecnology rather than DirectX10.
But I wanted something identically to native DirectX and I have tried to do it.
The only different things that I've maden is for Map and for asincronous loading (mantaining pointer in a class).
SlimDX miss some features (like 10.1 support)

Try to follow their SVN, 10.1 support and predicated rendering and raw access to vertex/pixel/geometry shader without the effects framework is complete from a week or two.
For the other things...well everyone has their own style, so good luck with your project.

RobyDX:

But I wanted something identically to native DirectX and I have tried to do it.

So why not just use DirectX..

IMHO wrapping a large constantly changing API like DirectX is foolhardy at best. Each to their own I guess.. :s

I think it's not the right thing to do answer in this way

"Why should i use this and not SlimDX"
"Why don't use Direct3D directly"

In this way you will stop software developing.

Every project, in borning state, let us think "I never will use this", but with passing of the time things change.

It's just like UNIX and Windows.

I just checked your Wrapper and looks made very good, continue, you just found the first user.

Craig Martin:

RobyDX:

But I wanted something identically to native DirectX and I have tried to do it.

So why not just use DirectX..

Maybe because P/Invoke is not that much fun?

Craig Martin:

IMHO wrapping a large constantly changing API like DirectX is foolhardy at best. Each to their own I guess.. :s

DX is not that much of a moving target as it has been in the early days. DX9 was stable for years and the changes between 10 and 11 are marginal at best. I have to agree with Vincent and mark your comment as rather pointless :}

I wanted only to tell to people interested in it that I've realised a .Net wrapper for DirectX10. What's the problem?
I really don't wanted to create a discussion if is right or not to create a wrapper.
I realize it for me because of some project that I've in mind and also because I haven't nothing to do.
Creating this wrapper required me very few time. I've realised some utility to convert code and a lot of part are just copy and paste.
I've started last month and I can dedicate only some hours in the evening, so is extremely simple.
DirectX11 is really similar to 10 so half of the work will be copy, paste, rename 10 to 11.
Also manteing will be simple. I'll just take old and new include file from SDK and check differences.

I hope to receive some feedback about bugs and improvements.

There's no problem but you are expecting feedback from people so you need to explain why your library is better thatn SlimDX becuase its well established and probably more complete and tested.

I'm sure Promit would love to have your expertise in helping him and the team add more to SlimDX if you have spare time too.

My library is not better then SlimDX,I never said this.
Is different in structure.
Is more similar to native DirectX, this is the only difference.
For example:
Texture1D derives from Resource, not from Texture1D
In SlimDX (last version dowloaded just 2 weeks ago) miss InfoQueue and Predicate and ThreadPump.
In my library every DirectX10 interface has the respective Managed Class with the same method with the same parameters.
I've limited the differences to overload of the method (for example where instead of a struct you can pass NULL),
use of array of byte and generics instead LPVoid and asyncronous resource that I've decided to create with an asyncronous system that doesn't convince me at all.
Problem of my library is that isn't tested at all so I'm tring to use as much method as possibile to test it.

Maybe I shoud rephrase...

If you want people to test, and later on use, your library then you need to explain the advantages to your library... right now I don't see that. People have a choice and a limited amount of time

SlimDX will (eventually) cover all of those missing things so as a potential end user I would rather you helped the SlimDX team complete the API than make a competing one.

I'm not saying you shouldn't do this... its a great idea and competition usually helps products... I'm just giving you the perspective on why, right now, as an consumer, I won't be spending any time testing it.

I hope you succeed and we end up with 2 complete well tested managed wrappers.