Leaderboard

I suggest LabdejaVIEW...

Shameless plug but feedback would be great since there's a lot that's changed. A few more eyes on it would help immensely before going live. The Encryption Compendium for LabVIEW (ECL) has had a major update. It's completed and a couple of weeks away from release as the documentation is in progress so there may be a few errors on that front. It's a commercial package so the gibs free crowd will, I hope, be disappointed. So what's new? IPv6 support (Thanks Rolf for your help with that). I've been wanting this for sooooo long but it required moving away from the NI primitives and nasty text programming. I bit the bullet and now have it, although a lot less hair SFTP Since NI released their poultry offering I thought I'd productionise the SFTP I had in my back pocket for quite a while and offer something actually useful. It comes with a full client example and supports recursive uploads, downloads and deletions (be careful with that last one). It also uses events for progress and status feedback in a similar fashion to the Websockets below. The event topology will be come a common feature of protocols in future additions. Websockets The ECL is a better home than a separate product since it was very difficult to distribute when trying to support TLS. Reworked from the ground, up it sits nicely in ECL and is the start of more encrypted protocol support in the future. Oh yes. Almost forgot. The ability to use Windows Certificate Store because ... why not? (and I wish I had thought of it ) If anyone would like to play before its release proper in a couple of weeks time, I can give you a trial copy (valid for 30 days). PM me and I'll send you a link.

At one point I heard NXG called "Better LabVIEW" and someone else suggested the real name was "Beta LabVIEW". I've also heard of it called to as LabVIEW 20xx, or Current Gen (CG). I like Lab-deja-VIEW.

You didn't look very hard; did you! We've just been discussing the callback functions and posted examples of using them. The answer to your question though is no. you cannot use them in the way you are thinking.

Of course there is something they could do. I expect the use of the ANSI versions of the file operations is making them resistant. I've my own set of compane equivalent of the native file operations that do it just fine - it's the Path Control that is the problem.