Jump to content

SPM

Members
  • Posts

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

SPM's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. BrokenArrow, Like I said, I'm a newbie to this stuff but have a long history with conventional OOP. And I am willing to learn. So here's an example of what I'm talking about. The system under test (SUT), in the case I'm considering, is a network. Configuring the SUT involves at least enumerating the devices in a network and specifying how they are connected to digital I/Os. This could be hardwired, but the customer wants to use simulators as well as physical devices without changing the test scripts. The configuration can be established using a Bridge pattern. (See my post in the LVOOP forum -- I've since hacked the stopwatch demo and verified that it can be done.) Can the configuration be made persistent so that it doesn't disappear between TestStand test steps? Thanks, - Steve.
  2. Hi, all, Could some of the gurus here help me out? I need to advise a customer tomorrow about whether they should chose LabVIEW or Measurement Studio as an ADE for TestStand. The application will be engineering system test of a life-critical networked system, especially at large scales. LabVIEW looks like a nice stable product, but I'm concerned about the level of difficulty of using it in this context. This may be my newness or something intrinsic. But the lack of something as basic as a Map VI or class is worrisome (as are the gyrations that the people who developed the prototype had to go through in a different thread.) Even something as basic as getting a VI to retain a value (memory) seems difficult. For instance, configuration. The customer wants to load configuration info dynamically to keep it synchronized with their own hardware configurations. In the context of LabVIEW's seeming aversion to memory, does this mean that every test step in TestStand is going to have to reconfigure the system? I'm not crazy about locking into .NET technology (having read the "Choosing the Right ADE" document,) but I just wonder if the dataflow paradigm is going to create a lot of trouble needlessly. Any help appreciated. Thanks, - Steve.
  3. QUOTE (Aristos Queue @ Apr 23 2008, 12:39 PM) Thank you for your help! On a quick look, the delegating class is similar in structure to the Abstraction class in Bridge, though the purposes of the patterns are much different. -S.
  4. Has anyone done the Bridge pattern yet? Would be extremely useful for a problem I have in test system configuration at startup. Thanks, - Steve.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.