Leaderboard

I would create actors/clonable module(s) for the different devices yes. That way you can dynamically create and destroy as many "loops" as you want.We do this in all our distributed monitoring solutions. Before all the frameworks we have available now, like DQMH, Actor Framework, the Message Library etc., existed we just cloned device templates VIs, where each such template takes care of pretty much all the tasks related to that device (with the help of some centralized services for logging etc).We do the same for communication interfaces. So, for each serial port e.g. we have a port handler that the devices use as a middle-man to share that port. Nowadays we use frameworks like DQMH to do much the same. Devices are now clonable instrument DQMH-modules that get initialized with a device object - which in turn contains an interface object in its private data (composition) which it uses to talk to interface DQMH modules. The various modules are created/destroyed by separate DQMH modules - a "Device manager", an "Interface manager" etc. We use broadcast events in the interface modules for example to facilitate debugging. If we need to figure out what it going on on a given interface, we can activate an observer which will then stream that data as UDP traffic to a debug client on the network...(One advantage of routing all the communication through such interface handlers instead of using semaphores or other mechanisms to share access.)

I learned a lot about serialization from writing my library. Took me 2 years of research and planning. "All I want to do is flatten and unflatten some data and I need a library of 900 VIs to do it?!?!?!!" Yes, give or take a couple hundred. Turns out serialization is really a lot more complex than I ever would have thought when you really get down to the core. Bloating the string is one of the most fascinating issues, something I totally ignored when I created the original flatten-to-string behaviors for LV classes. To flatten an object, you obviously need to record the type. But what about an array of objects? Do you need the type for every element in the array? Yes, if the array is heterogenous; no if it is homogenous. Can that be factored out? Depends upon what you plan to do with the string! If you're always going to start at the front of the string and unflatten all the data then you can factor out lots of stuff because you have context for the remainder of the string. But if you're going to fly along the string and find subportions to pull out then you need every subportion to be a complete record. "I have an array of 10000 objects. I need only 1 of them." That's a real serialization requirement and it has severe impact on the format of the string itself! Formatting for localization, formatting for versioning, formatting for different encodings, formatting for transmission (requires more redundancy in the data), pretty-printing for human readability... it's a mess. The one main takeaway I had from my project? I support trade embargoes on any nation that tries to use a comma for a decimal point. I know... Britain and the USA are outliers here, but, seriously, it's called a "decimal point"... stop putting a tail on it! I can deal with two different systems for units. I can deal with myriad ways to format a timestamp (even different calendars). I'm supportive of arcane Unicode encodings so that every language ever can be recorded. But I hit my breaking point on commas as decimal points. Why would I want to live in a world where I can order a 1.125 meter steel beam then be charged for delivery of something over a kilometer long?!?! This table should not exist. Yes, my library provides support for such abominations, but it was while adding that feature that I became a strong proponent of cultural hegemony!