ShaunR

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.

No-eyed-deer. This is purely a mismatch in the URI which chrome resricts by default (firefox, Safari and explorer don't exhibit this behaviour). I have only had this problem with websockets since I have never had the need to send cookies from labview. So I guess if your cookie issue works in the other browsers but not in chrome, then maybe it will solve it- you tell me

I noticed that you had this in your JS I'm guessing this comment is because you get a x-server script error when using chrome to access a "file://" URI (i.e a local file rather than an "http://" URI). You can override this limitation by launching chrome with the command-line switch "-allow-file-access-from-files". You should then be able to connect after opening an html file on the local file system without an error.

This is a simple example of the sort of thing I do with initilising/launching sub processes. The top example is fully synchronous and will launch the vi and wait until it gets the feedback from that VI before proceding to the next. The bottom one is the sort of thing I do mostly since it launches and initialises all the vis and then just waits until it gets the responses back. You can make it as complicated as you wish (check the responses rather than just waiting for a set number as I have shown or "gathering" them in a while loop instead of a for loop) however I think you can see the pattern. You will notice I am not talking about a "controller" here because it depends where you are using this. Generally, the UI will talk to a controller (you may have more than one e.g IO controller or sequence engine) and the controller will use this to launch its sub vis.

I quite like the first comment from the link that Phillip posted

"Fairness Doctrine"? Never heard of it (can't look it up on Wikipedia either )

That is a misnomer (and a common one) since foreign sites are not bound by US laws. The only thing realistically that can be achieved (as they do in Thailand) is restrict access to those sites from US governed territories. Good luck with extradition on SOPA grounds too. For example. In the UK they have introduced a law that any business web site must provide a notice that you will be setting cookies on a users machine and only do so with their consent (opt-in). Does it apply to NI sites in the US? Nope. Does the US care? Nope. I get really tired of the "Axis of Evil" arguments to stir up nationalism (not directed at you, just it's always the justification for anything unpopular both here in the UK and in the US). Politicians can no longer promise us dreams, so they promise protection from nightmares. It's the cold war mentality that really belongs in the 20th century and has done nothing for a safer world. Rather, it has ridden rough-shot over civil rights because we have believed it.

I find it a bit bizarre that the link you posted keeps saying "even those in the U.S". It is a proposed U.S. law, is it not? Therefore it is "Only in the U.S". But this is just the tip of the iceberg IMHO. It's not about IP or copyright. It is about control over the information to the masses and the excuse is IP/copyright. The quicker the US and Europe gets rid of it's NeoCons. The happier everyone will be.

Usually, each "module" will have it's own command queue and they will all use a common "status" queue rather than separate queues to feedback to the master. The thing to bear in mind is the topology. Queues are "Many-to-one". So for the commands, you can have many modules/controllers/whatever placing commands on that one modules queue. In reverse, you also have a "many-to-one", but now it is many modules placing status info on the controllers queue. Another way is to use a single "Control" notifier (a notifier is a "One-to Many") for the modules and each module filters the command sent. This has the advantage that you can "broadcast" to all modules things like Start, Stop, Pause etc which are global to all modules, but still enable defined commands for single modules which the module responds to. It has the downside that you can only have 1 command in the pipe at any-one time so for sequencing you have to arrange for some other mechanism. But the difference in this case is responsibility. The module is responsible for actioning the messages (shutting down, starting up etc) and the "Controller" just becomes the orchestrator. This is what I term "Autonomous Modules" and greatly simplifies the upper hierarchy at the expense of more complicated modules. You can also use a combination of both. for example, I may have a command "Queue" but broadcast back information via a notifier (great for UI stuff)

Consultant? Me? Naaah. I work for a living

I haven't had any certifications for about 10 years now. There's plenty of code and entire applications I've written out there if people wish to judge my abilities (or not as the case may be). CVs and certs are no substitute for "been there, done that, look at the code". However, in the absence of such, they are the only measure.

To me it kinda makes sense. It is a symptom of having no way to destroy an object. The by-val way of creating a pseudo-destroy method is as you describe in No3 since you can clear the array which is a surrogate for destroying the objects. You then pray to the great god MemMan and hope that the garbage collection will get rid of allocations (or at the very least, reused). The by-ref is a way of achieving the same pseudo-destroy, since you can destroy a ref (and just ignore what it returns). The difference in the destroying is that the owner is responsible for destroying the objects, rather than a function of whatever object you want to get rid of. In LV it's not a biggie because you have no control over de-allocations anyway, but in other languages you may have several different de-allocation procedures to satisfy that the owner may not be aware of.

Well. I'm no expert on US law (nor care much about it) but to qualify for safe harbour policies in most countries, they require some sort of condemnation and clear statements that it will not be tolerated (this is what the T&Cs are for). Nope. They can't do what they like with it. Their T&Cs only allow them to admonish distribution. You are not granting any license, that requires a document.