ShaunR

+1 on can't upload. Couldn't upload a VI (64K) and a snippet. Just said "the upload failed". (Tried in Chrome, IE and firefox-no dice).

Making excellent use of LabVIEWs x-platform capabilities then

Easier than you might think. Just attach the updateData to a button Onclick event.

Make JG Dance For You Windmill and kick is my favourite

It depends on what you mean by "merged". I use named queues rather than a named types which means that (amongst other things) I can send a string across the network and dynamically create a queue with that name at the other end.. I can't think of a way (off the top of my head) that I could easily do that with events. But generally. I think queues are easier to use since you just grab a reference by the name from any module without having to run wires or store the ref in a globally accessible storage. But apart from that. Yup. they are pretty similar (maybe because events use a queue?). Interesting to note that there is about 20% a difference in performance though (although I haven't looked closely at the test method)..

Are using the "Base Package"?

IC. The conditional disable will give you the bitness of Labview you are using. For the OS you can use the OS.Name property node.

The "Conditional disable" has pre-defined conditions for different OSs (bitness is one of them).

When you manipulate an integer it is always based from bit 0 i.e integer 1 = 00000001 (2^8 = 256 possible addresses). But that bit (LSB , bit 0)is used as a read/write flag. So Address 1 = 00000010 (integer 2 for a read) or 00000011 (Integer 3 for a write). Therefore the address is shifted by 1 bit and you are only using the top 7 bits (2^7 = 128 possible addresses) You can then OR your read/write flag into bit 0. If you were to send a U8 with the value of 1, you would in fact saying "write to Address 0". Sending. Integer 2 would be "read from address 1". and Integer 3 would be "write to address 1 etc. U8 (0) = 0000000 0 = read from address 0 U8 (1) = 0000000 1 = write to address 0 U8 (2) = 0000001 0 = read from address 1 U9 (3) = 0000001 1 = write to address 1

I think warnings are a double edged sword. For example. How many people turn off warnings on the LabVIEW error dialogue unless you are optimising? I prefer prioritised errors since the default Labview handling for errors will pop-up dialogues which then forces you to consider the seriousness of the error. It also enables you to do things like graceful degradation. Warnings, however, don't really give you much apart from the headache of documentation explaining what it means..

I wish I could find stuff on LAVA. I've commented many time before..but here we go again. Windows indexing is the windows search service (so no, you can't turn it off in LabVIEW AFAIK). It periodically runs through the system acquiring locks on files, reading its contents (so you can search contents), and building up it's quick search database. I've been bitten many times in the past by getting file errors at seemingly random intervals and it's a killer on logging apps. I now routinely disable it and have not been bitten by random file errors since (only my own faux pas - but I can debug those ) How to turn it off Try turning it off and see if your problem goes away.

If you are running under windows, turn off windows ndexing.

From my experience it's not so much the size of the file. It's the size of the hierarchy. If you have 1 VI that is 44MB it will load a lot faster than 10,000 VIs @44MB. Although I would want to debug the former . A splash screen means that you only have a very small hierarchy to load before you can display something. It also gives you the opportunity to "incrementally" load you application For example, you may have a "hardware check". In running that, you have loaded quite a few VIs that you probably use in the main app (and done something useful) without having to wait for the whole app to load.

Well. It's the same as the image ....but

If it's your dialogue. Why not just bypass it completely or put a switch in to disable dialogues (maybe log it to a file instead). If it's not your dialogue (i.e in another application) then there are some suggestions here.

Like this?

Probably is if you are talking to architects and experienced clds. But "most" labview programmers aren't and the limit of IPC conversations tends to go as far as a producer consumer loop with queues and that's about it.. I've yet to see a student, electrical or electronics engineer (LabVIEW is still seen as a secondary skill in many companies eyes) talk about IPC and messaging systems. And I've worked, and interviewed many. And those are exactly the apps that can fall fowl of this "feature". I've commented many times about how I feel that events have been neglected. So you are preaching to he the converted here. Well. Actually, in the strictest sense, Events shouldn't have a timeout at all. An event is either signalled or is not not. No other language I know of has event time-outs and if a programmer wants to time-out if no event is received within a time-frame, then he has to create a timer that gets reset when an event fires. This is probably why the event case is as it is. The windows forms message callback (Wndproc) just has a timer that gets kicked on entry. As for not registering unless you need to react. that is only applicable at design time. What if you have configurable alarms? You will still need all the cases on the off-chance that a user will want to register it and receive feedback. thats one of the more useful (but rarely seen in LabVIEW) uses for events. Unfortunately, I don't think it is "cool". At best it's unexpected behaviour and explains (IMO) a lot about problems people have seen with xControls.

I would actually categorise it as "unexpected behaviour". If it is a bug or not then depends on whether it was specifically designed to not timeout under certain circumstances. My guess is it wasn't considered and "most" developers would want a time-out to, well, time-out I think it's probably because most people only use the event case for the UI (and generally wire -1 to it). And only a few are brave enough to base a whole inter-process messaging system purely on events.So if anyone is going to find it....it's you

I'm in on the Justin and JG bandwagon. (not very crowded yet ) Doesn't anyone else think that a "timeout" that can never time out is in the least bit strange in concept? Sure you can find a use case for it. But I bet there is far more instances of head-scratching and cries of WTF. On the shoot yourself in the foot scale of 1-10. It's a bit of an 11. It's also one of those "issues" that you come across from time to time where the whole app just doesn't work, but when you try to debug. Everything works fine in isolation (or if you slow it down).

IC. I thought I was missing a trick That's a lot of work - Kudos for even considering it. I took the decision a while ago to cater for cross platform in Labview rather than support my own wrappers or modifying pre-tested API source. I figured that platforms change rarely, but dlls change often. If I just interface directly to the DLL from LabVIEW I could also take advantage of tested, pre-compiled binaries from the developers and just download and overwrite. But I am not as comfortable in C as you are. I also don't have to contend with backward compatibility to LabVIEW versions from 10 aeons ago (when there were no things like "pointer-sized" int). But presumably that could be worked around with the package builder too. I think there are a lot of people lurking on this thread waiting to pounce once you announce a 64 bit version.

You don't expect me to read threads do you? Apologies. He's all yours

Also...... you need to put the boolean control terminals inside of the case for that control otherwise when you press them they will not pop back to thier FALSE state. e.g

As far as I'm aware, lv can only load a dll of the correct bitness so I envisaged at least 2 zwrapper dlls (one x32 & one x64 if you stayed with an intermediary) even if you managed to thunk down to a single 32 bit zlib (expecting 4 dlls in total though). There's obviously a trick I'm missing and can't wait to see the solution. PC on next day delivery?

Is it the wrapper dll or the zlib dll thats crashing?. I've have a zlib dll that I'm using successfully in LVx64 if that's what is causing you problems. I'm not using it for zip files as I'm currently using the LV shipped ones (although it is compiled with the minizip 64 bit functons - not sure if you use them or not ). It passes all the zlib and minizip tests and labview isn't complaining (or dying) when compressing buffers. Anyhoo. I'm attaching it in the hope it might save you a bit of time.

I don't think your program is doing what you think it is doing. Your top loop is updating the indicators every 1 second. And your bottom loop will show you the new value about 0.25s after that. The "lag" is because you are only updating the command2 indicators every 250 ms. Set the 250 ms wait to zero and they will change instantly. You would be hard-pushed to measure the read/write time of a local variable (which would be a few cycles of the computers clock).