Here is a very good article regarding the Mutex solution. The approach described by the article is advantageous for two reasons.
First, it does not require a dependency on the Microsoft.VisualBasic assembly. If my project already had a dependency on that assembly, I would probably advocate using the approach shown in another answer. But as it is, I do not use the Microsoft.VisualBasic assembly, and I'd rather not add an unnecessary dependency to my project.
Second, the article shows how to bring the existing instance of the application to the foreground when the user tries to start another instance. That's a very nice touch that the other Mutex solutions described here do not address.
UPDATE
As of 8/1/2014, the article I linked to above is still active, but the blog hasn't been updated in a while. That makes me worry that eventually it might disappear, and with it, the advocated solution. I'm reproducing the content of the article here for posterity. The words belong solely to the blog owner at Sanity Free Coding.
Today I wanted to refactor some code that prohibited my application
from running multiple instances of itself.
Previously I had use System.Diagnostics.Process to search for an
instance of my myapp.exe in the process list. While this works, it
brings on a lot of overhead, and I wanted something cleaner.
Knowing that I could use a mutex for this (but never having done it
before) I set out to cut down my code and simplify my life.
In the class of my application main I created a static named Mutex:
static class Program
{
static Mutex mutex = new Mutex(true, "{8F6F0AC4-B9A1-45fd-A8CF-72F04E6BDE8F}");
[STAThread]
...
}
Having a named mutex allows us to stack synchronization across
multiple threads and processes which is just the magic I'm looking
for.
Mutex.WaitOne has an overload that specifies an amount of time for us
to wait. Since we're not actually wanting to synchronizing our code
(more just check if it is currently in use) we use the overload with
two parameters: Mutex.WaitOne(Timespan timeout, bool exitContext).
Wait one returns true if it is able to enter, and false if it wasn't.
In this case, we don't want to wait at all; If our mutex is being
used, skip it, and move on, so we pass in TimeSpan.Zero (wait 0
milliseconds), and set the exitContext to true so we can exit the
synchronization context before we try to aquire a lock on it. Using
this, we wrap our Application.Run code inside something like this:
static class Program
{
static Mutex mutex = new Mutex(true, "{8F6F0AC4-B9A1-45fd-A8CF-72F04E6BDE8F}");
[STAThread]
static void Main() {
if(mutex.WaitOne(TimeSpan.Zero, true)) {
Application.EnableVisualStyles();
Application.SetCompatibleTextRenderingDefault(false);
Application.Run(new Form1());
mutex.ReleaseMutex();
} else {
MessageBox.Show("only one instance at a time");
}
}
}
So, if our app is running, WaitOne will return false, and we'll get a
message box.
Instead of showing a message box, I opted to utilize a little Win32 to
notify my running instance that someone forgot that it was already
running (by bringing itself to the top of all the other windows). To
achieve this I used PostMessage to broadcast a custom message to every
window (the custom message was registered with RegisterWindowMessage
by my running application, which means only my application knows what
it is) then my second instance exits. The running application instance
would receive that notification and process it. In order to do that, I
overrode WndProc in my main form and listened for my custom
notification. When I received that notification I set the form's
TopMost property to true to bring it up on top.
Here is what I ended up with:
static class Program
{
static Mutex mutex = new Mutex(true, "{8F6F0AC4-B9A1-45fd-A8CF-72F04E6BDE8F}");
[STAThread]
static void Main() {
if(mutex.WaitOne(TimeSpan.Zero, true)) {
Application.EnableVisualStyles();
Application.SetCompatibleTextRenderingDefault(false);
Application.Run(new Form1());
mutex.ReleaseMutex();
} else {
// send our Win32 message to make the currently running instance
// jump on top of all the other windows
NativeMethods.PostMessage(
(IntPtr)NativeMethods.HWND_BROADCAST,
NativeMethods.WM_SHOWME,
IntPtr.Zero,
IntPtr.Zero);
}
}
}
// this class just wraps some Win32 stuff that we're going to use
internal class NativeMethods
{
public const int HWND_BROADCAST = 0xffff;
public static readonly int WM_SHOWME = RegisterWindowMessage("WM_SHOWME");
[DllImport("user32")]
public static extern bool PostMessage(IntPtr hwnd, int msg, IntPtr wparam, IntPtr lparam);
[DllImport("user32")]
public static extern int RegisterWindowMessage(string message);
}
- Form1.cs (front side partial)
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
protected override void WndProc(ref Message m)
{
if(m.Msg == NativeMethods.WM_SHOWME) {
ShowMe();
}
base.WndProc(ref m);
}
private void ShowMe()
{
if(WindowState == FormWindowState.Minimized) {
WindowState = FormWindowState.Normal;
}
// get our current "TopMost" value (ours will always be false though)
bool top = TopMost;
// make our form jump to the top of everything
TopMost = true;
// set it back to whatever it was
TopMost = top;
}
}
If you want to bind to another property on the object:
{Binding Path=PathToProperty, RelativeSource={RelativeSource Self}}
If you want to get a property on an ancestor:
{Binding Path=PathToProperty,
RelativeSource={RelativeSource AncestorType={x:Type typeOfAncestor}}}
If you want to get a property on the templated parent (so you can do 2 way bindings in a ControlTemplate)
{Binding Path=PathToProperty, RelativeSource={RelativeSource TemplatedParent}}
or, shorter (this only works for OneWay bindings):
{TemplateBinding Path=PathToProperty}
Best Answer
Honestly, I think you could probably implement a layer to allow you to port most of WinForms to WPF, but you really shouldn't. Let me use an analogy - Moving from WinForms to WPF is like moving from an imperative language to an object oriented one (or from OO to pure functional). It's really hard, nothing seems to work right, solutions don't make sense, everything seems over-engineered, and then... you get it. You have a flash of insight, the light bulb goes on and you see a whole new world where tasks are easier to accomplish and easier to maintain (than in WinForms).
But first you have to grok it. It's really easy to keep coding in the WinForms style in WPF so you have to force yourself not to or you'll never take that next step. Force yourself to start from a clean slate, learn how to apply MVVM, take a look at Prism, build some really simple apps and then add to them to explore how to manage complexity the WPF way. You might implement WinForms in WPF but all you would ever have is people coding WinForms in WPF. You basically end up with the equivalent of (from the Imperative -> OO days) making every class a singleton with all static methods. You might be "using" WPF, but you (and/or your coworkers) will never grow past that stage.
From what I can glean from your situation I would recommend that you not try to switch to WPF unless you are writing a new application with a small team. If that does end up being the case then the small team can be a nucleus for change because once one person in your organization "gets it" they will teach others near them until the light bulbs start turning on all around over the place. That's what we've done in my current organization and looking back the progress everyone's made just in the last 6 months is staggering.