Are there any licensing issues with reverse engineering and hosting the FxCop "engine" in my own UI? I'm trying to do more architecture based rules and different UI feed back to the user. The only way i can figure out to show the user a different UI is to host the engine my self.
I did notice in Reflector that the FxCopUI.dll had something that looked like a plug in architecture that allowed custom actions when the user interacts with a problem in the main UI. There is a CustomAction class and a Triggers enum. Is that something I could take advantage of instead of trying to host the entire engine?
This isn't a supported scenario, unfortunately, and the FxCop EULA does contain language prohibiting reverse engineering.
We could consider a hosting scenario for the FxCop engine, but the current architecture wasn't designed for this. I've taken a look in the past and there are some peculiarities we'd need to resolve before we had a flexible and sensible object model.
As far as the UI is concerned, the plug in architecture you've noticed is a half-baked feature we never finished off. It looks as though we'll be reconceiving this work in the release after our next rules update. The UI itself has actually been frozen for over a year now as we've worked on the VS2005 integration features.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005 1:58 PM
Microsoft is conducting an online survey to understand your opinion of the Msdn Web site. If you choose to participate, the online survey will be presented to you when you leave the Msdn Web site.