ShaunR

I think the confusion came from trying to have the same architecture as the firmware (multiple zones all reading the same message off the CAN bus) but this is not possible in a simulated environment on the PC.

Actually it is quite possible. Use Events and all zones register and filter for messages. This is directly analogous to what the CAN bus is doing.

Once somebody understands the "ideal" way to implement something--and more importantly why it is "ideal"--then they are in a better position to make decisions on when it is okay to use less-than-ideal implementations. But to get to that level of understanding requires somebody pointing out the flaws and consequences of the implementation they're using. IMO why is the most important question humanity has ever asked.

That's what training courses and seminars are for. Forums (to me) are for the "I've got this problem with this code,, anyone know how to fix it?" questions and general, unstructured "discussions". Therefore I don't see them as an ideal or even particularly good platform for "training". Most people IMHO post and want/need an answer in a day or so. Understanding architectures takes longer than that and doesn't solve their immediate problem.

So using your analogy. They already have the bloody stump. I usually give them a band-aid and tell them how not to lose the other one

It also requires that you know the type ahead of time to drop the correct terminal. Which of course is the point of the "run time" preservation in the suggestion (yes I know there's nothing "run time" about it, but we are drawing an analogy).

You also need to know the type ahead of time with the others as well (supply a control to define the type). I would prefer it just coerces to the type of the indicator that I hang off of it which in fact is more useful than the "To Data" and James would get his function without having to define the type input. It (i think) should behave like a polymorphic VI but we don't have to write all the cases.

Until that happens. I'm still using strings and variants (to me) are still the feature that never was..

Can I also reiterate my long standing peeve about not being able to create "native" polymorphic controls/indicators. X controls is another "half" solution.

I’ve proposed it on the Idea Exchange.

I still think this is a "half" solution. With variants, we should just be able to wire an output to an indicator and it should just do it without explicit conversion.

Users posting on a forum tend to have been trying for a while to get round a specific problem or lack of understanding. Muddying the waters with architecture (when not asked for) tends to just confuse and frustrate. I'm reminded of what a teacher once said to me for exam technique. Answer the the question, not what you think they are asking.

I tend to solve the immediate problem (usually with an example) then suggest improvements. However. Rolf has a huge amount of experience in umpteen programming languages as well as solving comms problems on a day-to-day basis so his one-liner is second nature.

It helps when they post an example as then you can tell their level of expertise. If they have roughly hacked an example shipped with LabVIEW and it "sort of works". They may have spent all day trying to get the last bit sorted. This generally means that they if you start spouting about OOP and Actor frameworks, then they will probably just give up as "LabVIEW is too hard to do simple things".

That just creates a single point of failure. Something I cannot do in this system as the cost of it failing is expensive. I can live with one server going down or one client, but not something central to everything.

Depends how many dispatchers you have. If you have a single dispatcher (centralised server like a DNS server) then yes. If you have a dispatcher on every machine (like apache), then no-as long as you have reduntant processes elsewhere. The usual topology I use is to have a machine with, say, 5 processes and replicate that for failover. If the machine goes down then you just point to the other machine(s). That's the way the web works

But haven't we discussed this before?

The end goal is a system where there are N servers and N clients. Each client can connect to N servers at the same time. Servers support N connections from clients simultaneously Servers 'push' data changes to the clients. Clients send commands to servers to control them. The data is mostly small but there are some circumstances where it could be around 1M. But that would not be continuous. Only once a minute or less. Most of the time the messages will contain a few k of data at most.

Clients will drop off from time to time and the servers will automatically detect this and stop sending to them.

Clients will know the machine names of the servers and will contact them to start a connection.

I really wish the VI Server method was feasible. It is by far the simplest and cleanest.

I will look at those examples. thanks,

-John

Yup. I meant the example to show dynamically launching of TCP processes (there are hidden "handlers" which are dynamically launched).

I don't see any reason why it should be an issue. Launching dynamic VIs means you can run them in separate threads and/or execution systems from the launching process so although your dispatcher might be in the UI thread, the spawned processes need not be.

Do you have an example? Seems I would have to create a listener on the receiver side for every 'potential' sender. Since the receiver does not know who the senders might be, I can't think of how to do that.

The LabVIEW UI has sucked for quite a long time now, but If your going to go for HTML and CSS you might as well take it completely out of LabVIEW and make it platform independent.

Unfortunately, When it comes to artistic talent, I wasn't even in the building when they were handing it out So as much as I complain about the LV UI, I can't really do any better. The guys/gals that make those interfaces for the coding challenges just blow me away.

Any UI in CSS, SVG and HTML that I do takes weeks and looks, at best, mediocre.

The server had a nervous breakdown because I got to the number 2 spot

The proble. With this will be identifying the object in the first place, the hand, and it staying consistent enough.

This can be alleviated by using a camera with a shallow depth of field so that the hand is in sharp focus but a few inches back is totally out of focus. He will not be able to do that with a laptop cam however, but he might get away with a webcam with a manual focus ring if he is far enough away.

Hi,

I need to stream 40 MBps to disk, .tdms, on a NI PXIe-8133, quad i7 1.73 GHz from 10 DIO cards. I understand that 40 MBps is roughly the max of what the SATA drive will do. I'm getting at least 30 MBps. Is the 40 MBps limit assumption good?

I think I should have a dedicated drive for the data instead of streaming to the controller drive. RAID is surely overkill. Has anyone connected an external drive to a NI controller with the ExpressCard slot? Any other ideas? I think my producer consumer code is ok.

cc

Depends on the drive.

SATA 1.5 theoritical max is 150 MB/s, SATA 2 300MB/s and SATA 3 is 600MB/s. I have a NAS box at home that easily does a sustained 60MB/sec over a 1Gb connection (with Jumbo frames).

NI PXI racks have pretty crappy hard drives as standard I would benchmark it with these

http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/epd/p/id/5348

.....then buy a decent one

Are the HTTPS VIs that are shipped with LabVIEW 2010 and later not of any use?

I have an application that has several different data views, any number of which could be open at a time in their own window. Many views track mouse movements and display context information by showing small frameless panels, and hiding them when not relevant.

I'm having trouble though capturing mouse events when the cursor "leaves" a window by moving on top of other windows which are higher on the z-stack. Basically none of the control, pane, or VI mouse leave events fire since the mouse technically never left any of the respective boundaries, so I'm left with an orphaned tooltip window until the mouse happens to stray back to the window.

This video quickly demonstrates as much: http://www.screencast.com/t/aRCEDlqWVG

Now I can think of a few ways to fix this such as having each view broadcast an application level event to the effect of "Hey I have the cursor now so the rest of you hide your tooltips," but that seems inelegant. Surely there's a way to manage this locally without starting to throw around global brodcasts?

We want the tooltips to display even if the window does not have focus, so tracking focus is not really an answer.

Try using the "Mouse Leave" event of the pane? Although your last comment (tooltips display when it doesn't have focus) seems contradictory so that might not be what you are after.

I meant because you were already using Windows 8.

Not really using it (in fact I hate the Metro interface so won't be upgrading anytime soon). However I needed to test out IE10 so put it in a VM

Well, aren't you fancy?

I think there's supposed to be an attachment on your previous post, any chance you still have the relevant snippet?

Not that fancy (it's LabVIEW doing the work )

I had a clear out not so long ago, so no. I don't. But I imagine it was something like this:

Anyone know the string returned to OSName when the OS is Windows 8? I don't have a test system with W8 on it so can't verify it myself yet.

The JSON package currently depends on four OpenG packages: Data, Array, String, and Error. The array stuff is only used in one place that I’d like to rewrite anyway, so it is only three packages that are required. And the variant-handling stuff is widely applicable; if I wrote Variant-based APIs to be “self contained”, I would quickly wind up in a situation where I have multiple non-identicle sets of variant-handling VIs installed on my machine. Not ideal. Switching to using the off-palette VariantDataType VIs installed with LabVIEW is one option, but then if NI hasn’t put it on the palette, don’t you need to gain approval for that?

No. It doesn't matter. Only that it is an approved vendor (which NI must be otherwise they wouldn't be using LabVIEW).

But lets not run before we can walk. Lets get it all working properly first. As I seem to be the only one that suffers from this, I will gradually replace the dependencies and you can decide whether you want to update the main trunk with the branch as and when it happens. I have to do it anyway, but you don't need to.

Whether or not you store to disk is irrelevant as to whether you can track if a file is done. The Download File VI can still maintain a list of all the segments it expects and all the segments which have reported done. The Download File VI doesn't need to hang on to any of the actual data (let the segment downloaders write the file themselves, if you like). When the segment reports done, remove that segment from the working list of remaining segments.

Indeed. In fact. I would let the individual segment downloaders save the pieces, then probably get the download VI to sew them all together in the right order before sending the file name back to the main app.

Currently I store each segment to the HDD as it comes. This way I avoid memory issues when getting a large file. Each segment consists of few hundred KB but each file can be few hundred MB large, where a batch of files can be even bigger. So, everytime I <snip>

Sorry if I misunderstood your explanation, but if this is the case, would you be able to provide these two VIs? of course no coding required, I just want to see how you would re-arrange the queueing mechanism that you mentioned between these two VI's.

Thanks

Kas

As Asbo says. You don't need to send the actual data back. The segment downloaders only need to send the filename of the segment they downloaded and saved to the Download VI.

I think this demonstrates it for you (quick and dirty though it is). Of course with these things there is little error checking and no limitation to the number of spawned sub-processes. But I think you'll get the idea.Some of your VIs were missing so I couldn't use those. But I made it download some URLs using the HTTP VIs instead. Exactly the same idea except instead of passing the HTML back, you will pass a filename.

A gopher?

Coffee, white, No sugar please

By this reasoning you wouldn't be able to add anything from lavag either including this library.

That's right (and I have never used any software from LavaG in a commercial application). However, it is much easier to gain approval for a single self contained API than it is for one that relies on another 20 (like the OpenG). The problem with the OpenG stuff is that you want one little VI and you have to get approval for 120. It's easier and quicker to write the bit you need yourself.

And no. My re-use libraries are not a problem as I am an approved vendor.

I am downloading multiple files at a time, where each file is made of multiple segments or parts to be downloaded.

That's the key, right there. You're only lacking encapsulation depth at the moment. The thing to remember about queues is that they are a "Many-To-One" paradigm. So you have Many segments to One file and Many Files to One Batch.

I would tackle it this way.........

Create a "Download File" VI (launched re-entrantly) which you pass all the segments (a list?) that are required for that file to. It, in turn, then launches the individual segment downloads (again re-entrantly) by iterating through the list. The last thing a segment download VI does just before it exits is to post the segment to the Download File vis queue (Which will be named something like Download File.vi:3 i.e the clone name). The "download File" vi receives all the segments (for that one file) and, when it has all of them, reports back to your main app. The main app just sits and waits for completed files to come in.

In terms of queues, you only really need the return queues. So the Download File vi creates a queue to receive the segments (using it's clone name) and also has a queue named, say, "~download_files~" that is used to send back to the main app. All the download VI clones share the latter queue. The Download Files VI passes it's clone named queue to each of the segment queues (or you could get fancy and calculate it from the caller) so that they can use it to report back the individual segments to it's parent (the Download VI clone that launched them).

Theoretically, the not-on-the-pallet VIs in vi.lib\Utility\VariantDataType should blow the OpenG stuff out of the water, as OpenG has to flatten the data to access it (expensive), but my only experience with the VariantDataType Vis is that they are glacially slow.

In theory. Practice and theory are the same. In practice, they are not

Historically the openG stuff is generally more performant since a lot of them perform the same functions as are available in LV, just optimised. Of course with the NI grown ones they can have C functions in the exe to do the heavy lifting, but usually they use nodes that run the the UI thread which mitigates any performance gained

Saying that. I use the vi.lib getTypeInfo,GetCluster/numeric etc but I haven't bench-marked them since they are "Hobsons Choice" for me.

OK, but to me it seems silly for anyone to avoid OpenG yet use this (far, far less tested through experience) third-party open-source software. I’d rather offer the whole package to OpenG.

I'm not opposed to that either but I thought Ton was talking about it going into the Lavag Tools Network..

Now, do it with higher performance and you’ll get me interested.

Yeah. Well its got LVPOOP in it so that's not an option.

Shaun,

I am looking at the VIPM package that Ton and I have put together. Shall we divide into two packages, one not dependent on OpenG and one that contains all the Variant stuff? So people who can’t use OpenG can still use the core functions or your extended API? I can do that just be replacing one OpenG function, Trim Whitespace, in the core (can we use your “Fast Trim” instead).

Ton,

You currently have the package installing under LAVA; don’t we need a LAVA tools approved package before doing that?

If you can wait until next weekend, I'll replace all the openG stuff so it's a self contained lib. Just a bit busy at the moment finalising the websocket demo, but that will be finished this week.