ShaunR

Sweet. I wonder if we could get an "area" on Lava for these so they are all in one place and easy to find

Great. Traffic lights, car wash anyone?

Well. I really can't think of any other ways to phrase it that I haven't already.....

Think of it this way guys. An architecture astronought has designed the system (no matter how crap it is) and supplied a spec for a contractor code-monkey to code against. It's not the code-monkeys remit to re-design the system and re-write the spec (that's what the astronought is paid for) - just code to spec. If you (not you specifically, but generally) cannot code to spec, then your not much use within a team of coders lead by an astronought (you could be considered argumentative). That's the first rung you have to master before you can climb to where the oxygen is thinner. That is where the CLD sits - can you follow instruction and documentation. It may not be glamorous, or exercise your artistic/thought provocative nature, but it can be hard and daunting for many-even in classical LabVIEW. When it comes to OOP, it's harder by 10-fold if you aren't of that mind-set and those that are, maybe unsure of how to achieve it in LabVIEW. Whether it is close to real or not is irrelevent. It's to help those at that level by giving examples (in LVOOP) that they can analyse and compare. I'm just suggesting (with all the super-guru LVOOP talent in Lava) that perhaps if examples of the CLD practise exams where demonstrated with LVPOOP, then maybe a lot more people would grok and maybe ken the advantages/disadvantages and methods. Maybe on your efforts you might see all submissions in the future in LVOOP rather than classical. But if the thread goes in the direction of "it's too simple and uninteresting for LVOOP" or "it's not a real project therfore LVOOP isn't applicable" then those are just weasel words and LVOOP has already failed. James. The CLA exams don't target code (you can use the same UML for both right?) and I'm not sure what you could take away from it. But sure, if you have an example, post it.

I'm thinking of sample CLD solutions. (i.e to the spec in the example exams). The point is to show that identical results can be achieved with both methodologies using the exisiting classical solution as a reference to understanding the LVOOP. However. I don't descriminate between the two. The CLD exam IS a real world application (it has a spec and a deliverable).

You have a race condition. Try this.

Lava is obviously a great place to pick the brains of the Labview community elite. It is also more LVOOP centric than other labview sites and has some awsome LVOOP talent. However. Most of the LVOOP concepts discussed are very advanced for the average LabVIEW programmer and centered around a few personal projects with no real focus on deliverable code, rather frameworks and eosoteric concepts. Quite often we see potential CLDs posting their code, for comment, as a prelude to taking the exams. All of these are written in classical LabVIEW. If the LVOOP community is adamant that LVOOP is the future, then maybe some of the LVOOP gurus could post unofficial, demonstrative LVOOP implementations of the example exams (ATM, traffic lights etc). This would then give a focus on using LVOOP to achieve specific end goals, with well defined specifications and exisiting solutions for comparison - it would allow those using classical LabVIEW techniques to comparitively understand LVOOP in context with the classical solutions. Is anyone up to the challenge? To provide (unofficial, demonstration) LVOOP solutions of CLD example exams for the benefit of potential CLDs? We see many different approaches in classical LabVIEW to solving the examples. Would we see a similar plethora of innovative LVOOP solutions? Perhaps it could even be a collaborative effort to produce them and maybe , once refined they could be proffered to NI as a candidate for an official NI solution along side the classical one!

So you want a singleton?

I think most of our confusion (well, mine at least) arises from the fact you are trying to cast at all. I thought you were questioning why you get the parent after the cast rather than a child of the type you select. What is wrong with

Indeed. That is why the To More Specific "casts" it to the parent type (because that is what the type is on the wire, coerced by the array concatenation). The only way you can "extract" the contained class (as you point out) is via the invisible selection methods in the LVOOP system (the equivelent in my analogy of "extracting" the bits).

Arrays have to be of a single type. The child classes get coerced to the parent since that is the only type for which they are all compatable to exist as a single type within the array (and why you have coercion dots). If you think about adding a Uint32 to a DBL array, the Uint gets coerced to a DBL right? So do your classes.

It could be for the mouse wheel WControl Does the mouse wheel stop working if you disable it?

Oh. And as an after-thought (an after I can edit, thought ). The reason for posting wasn't to provide a "faster" version of the NI one (thats more by accident since I didn't benchmark it). Just a version that you could see the diagram - Jims request, Feel free to change the calls to UI if it makes you happier because with this offering you can

It's a good point. I have never seen it defined explicitly that "all LabVIEW.exe calls are thread-safe" (perhaps someone from NI could clarify). Or indeed (by extension) a definition of those that were or were not. However, thread safety is usually defined on a per dll (or in this case per exe) basis. So if the LabVIEW.exe wasn't thread-safe. I think we would all be in trouble. Anecdotally, I have never run into any problems assuming it is. Thats not to say that NI have not ensured all calls are indeed thread-safe on the assumption that no-one outside of NI without the internal knowledge as to what call is and isn't thread-safe. But I would be very, very surprised if they were mixed and matched within the exe. Saying that. Calls to the labVIEW.exe that involve the user interface I do not make re-entrant on the assumption that it is a call within the UI thread. So if any were going to be an exception, it would probably be those.

What I did with PassaMak was that the engine would exclude any controls where the caption wasn't visible (it too used the label as a tag). The user then just showed the label instead of the caption for that "ignored" control/indicator. But as Yair said, it isn't common and it doesn't really make any difference if you do add all controls since who expects a control on a preferences dialogue not to remember what you put in it?

Perhaps it has longer wires or more wire bends restricting the dataflow

I didn't mean to belittle your efforts. It's great. Just not what I originally thought.

Thats a pity since I don't use VIPM or the tools:( Nevermind. I think I got the wrong end of the stick. I thought it was adding a page to the LabVIEW preferences (from the LabVIEW toolbar). Still sweet though.

Ditto with the get config file. This is sweet. Huge improvement on the original. Nice work. One question. Does it need the openG tools intalled on the users machine? (i.e what about distribution of the developers toolkit that these settings apply too)

Install both anyway, then if you run into problems with the 64bit (tookit not supported etc), you can just recompile and continue in the 32 bit version. Source

Me neither.

for a generic deveopment system this is the sort of thing I look for: As many slots as your desk can handle (14 is typical - mixed, PCI, PCIe of varying 1x, 8x etc) AGP graphics card and slot (don't use up your precious PCI, PCIe slots) at least 1x9-way Dtype serial port (most have two). a parallel port (always handy for quick DIO). As many USB as you can find (typically they come with 2-4 but there is usually support for more on the motherboard via a breakout to the rear-buy the breakout with the PC because they are hard to source separately). At least 2x GB ethernet ports (make sure one is a "Intel Pro 1000" so that vision can use the NI high performance driver) at least 1x RS485 port (make sure it supports 4 wire although usually you can get away with one that only support 2-wire for most things). Fastest, meanest processor that the person who owns the purse strings will let you have. Wordsworth are a safe bet in terms of support and product longevity for out of the box solutions (but expensive). Protech are where all industrial PC manufacturers get their SBCs and backplanes from if you want to build your own.

Well. In that case you have two options. 1. Use a look-up table (which you have already said you don't like) 2. Ascertain the baud characterisitc and calculate it. Baud rate generators are a function of the processor clock. So if you find one here that closely matches your ring control, you should be able to work out a function for calculating it for that device [i.e that devices clock - most use 18.432 MHz if they have any sense, e.g. UBRR = (18432000 / (16 x Baud rate)) - 1].

Well. I think you are over-thinking it a bit. However. If you use a ring instead of an enum, you can assign abitrary numeric values to your strings (the baud rates) since a rings values doesn't have to be contiguous. You can then wire it straight into your "Config Serial Port" VI.