jgcode

Yes, that is just an example (not uploaded to the repo) for discussion only (at the moment) - my LabVIEW options are set as CP Required (apologies for any confusion - I have edited the image). So you like it in the middle of the Comparison icon? No I meant OpenG... Ha! Can you go into detail please? That's no dramas, I would want the code review to stay in LabVIEW 2009. Anyways, you can easily contribute (if you want to) CP ideas from 8.6. Here I got you started Comparsion.vi Code is in LabVIEW 8.6.1

Yes, this is what the help says: I would have assumed debug mode to be similar to edit mode - but it probably doesn't matter what it does because you can't edit the code (obviously).

Christian Loew implemented it for Reference Design for Adding Licensing to LabVIEW Real-Time Applications (I have used the code for a licensing requirement - its really good) and he also has it available here.

FWIW this is a work around I use at the moment when I want a human readable file. Adding a non-type def cluster to group the items I want to flatten to disk Here is (part of) a Class API The Read From Disk method delegates read/writing to another object (so I can change file format etc...) In this example the Base File Class writes a config file (OpenG style) I have a reuseable VI from my own library: That is a wrapper for the OpenG VIs to guarantee certain functionality I can handle file versioning to (not shown here). In this example this creates a nice config type (settings) file. The cool thing about OpenG is that this supports inheritance - as long as the variable names are unique up the chain - I can write to the same section. I have found that MGI VIs do not allow this as they write the section as a string as opposed to key-value pairs (config API). I have to say using the native XML is much easier tho. ---- Jim have you done any prototyping of your idea?

I don't think it's odd esp given the input and output are different datatypes. I do agree it is not the standard comparison CP, but we have an additional argument input here. Even if it was string in / string out if you check the first three String functions (top row) they don't match (offset vertically). Here is an inline example. Personally, I don't think this looks 100% right where the argument is - what do you guys think? Also, it would helpful if you guys could post code of this VI with the CP's you want. Cheers!

(Sorry, I am unsure from your post) Are you suggesting you want it like Ton has requested (same as comparison palette) or like the Array if String to Path image? Please don't (I did play around with inline too and other CP arrangements) - but this is the whole point of the review

Yes, sorry you are correct - it is a VData not VVariant output. I will add it to the root palette, no dramas. Cheers!

Roger. Unfortunately that spot is already taken I will have to drop it down a row. There is also a VVariant palette (which is what the output is)?

This is a very simple (wrapper) VI that would be a nice addition to the OpenG LabVIEW Data Library. You can track this item here: ID 3411324 Here are the submission details: Get Default Data from Variant.vi TEST - Get Default Data from Variant.vi Code is in LabVIEW 2009

I am confident that the OpenG team will be able to solve this problem technically, without causing re-linking issues (with the help of a tool etc...). If not, that would be a reason not to migrating IMHO. It is my understanding that VIs are not loaded into memory, only the Library (.lvlib) is and any child Libraries. If that child Library is a Class Library than yes, those Class method VIs will be loaded into memory as per the how Classes work.

lol... ok I won't however, your (s and Fab's) reply for code changes was what I was after. Great tip, that should be noted as a valid use case of Subroutine Priority. I like that an end used could easily read, follow or debug code, of course they could always switch this option back on. Anyone else got a preference for this option - when to use it etc... (or bench marking) - feel free to start a new thread if needed.

Does anyone else have anything else to add - differing opinions etc...? Or can I close this issue off?

Ok here is the updated candidate thanks to the improvements made by Darin and Fab. Included in the ZIP is the benchmarking VI Darin mentions. To Character Array.vi To Character Array.zip Code in LabVIEW 2009

No - because the fact is you can change the caption without really thinking about it - but you haven't changed the label name which is the dependency (and hence your code is not broken)! The BD label will still be red, and this is only for the case of a UI VI. I love it!

No, that is what I was referring to. Apologies.

You can track these bugs here: ID: 3411108 - Variant Configuration Library ID: 3411109 - LabVIEW Data Library

I think we have some cool code here, so this review is pending. If there are no further comments in a few days I will close the review. Thanks for everyone's input!

Personally, I would like to see this happen, for reasons listed in the OP (namely scope and namespacing) - but this is more from an OpenG Developer POV. Additionally, I think it is inline with the way LabVIEW libraries are heading (or have been heading) too. On a side note, I like the fact the VIs are just VIs for some of the ways I do building (tools etc...), but regardless I think .lvlibs are a positive move forward. What are some of the End User benefits (or downfalls) of such a migration? Please discuss - as I would like to see this topic advance.

Parse I guess. FWIW, there is no difference writing ASCII using binary or text VIs (given you mentioned reading with config API):

Yer, I had to format my entire HDD to get this fixed Still didn't know what caused it - but on the upside LabVIEW ran faster

Yes, it has prims you can drop onto your VIs from the palette (once you install the toolkit of course).

Ha, I was going to explicitly write that... But I don't think I have used that method on UI - and if I did, I would most likely send the data as e.g. a Class, and then update the UI accordingly using the 'API' of the UI I like to do this (with Class) if I have a group of data to send.

Vargas has Crypto-G, other names I can think of are Encryption or Security. But I think Cryptography is best.

Hey Guys, that's great! On the topic of execution priority - I am not sure we want to this set as subroutine priority like we did with the Trim Whitespace change. One of the reasons we did this was that NI's Trim Whitespace uses that setting: I think this setting should be reserved for special cases only. When do you use Subroutine priority? is a LAVA thread that Jim pointed me too. Feel free to chime in there too with your experiences. Of course please discuss in this thread if you think To Character Array should use this setting (highlighting pros and cons is helpful).

Hey Ton, having these functions in OpenG sounds like a great idea.