ShaunR

Were a bit off topic. But I'm going to steam ahead anyway since I don't think it'll last long otherwise I would have started a new thread. We must have the same customers . Its pretty much what I get (initially). Only my approach is for me to write the spec over a series of sit-downs (hand-holding). That way I can include stuff in the spec that perhaps they hadn't considered, but important to their operational situation (back-up and data storage is a common one they overlook). It also means I get a very good picture of the customers "minds-eye" of what they expect the system to be like. I usually also try and get one of their technical people to be actively assigned to the project then you get out of a lot of the "status reporting" 'cos thats his job Your thoughts about what constitutes a change (and therforre the customer incurrsa cost) is identical to mine. However, you sneakily said "correctly working software", which, is normally the bit that starts arguments. And it needs to be extremely well defined right at the start of the project what and how testing will be done by both parties to ascertain its "correctness". I would go 1 further and say "correctly working system! I take the (some may think draconian) view if its not working "correctly" then its not completed and therefore not released to the customer (expecting customers to do alpha and beta testing is a cop-out). V1.0 is the first time a customer will get the system and Its very rare you will find an up-issue that is a bug-fix release in either software, hardware or mechanics.

Make sure that your camera is working properly in Measurement and automation explorer. It should auto-detect your camera and In the main window area you can press "Grab" to make sure you get an image. Use this for capture instead (I've saved a version in LV 9.0 and 8.5) This I can test an works fine (no flashing, fast frame-rate @ 640x480)

That's because it doesn't matter how you did it. As long as you did it on-time, on-budget and to spec. Reminds me of a cartoon I once saw where there was a really long paragraph of an engineer explaining how they did something (he was chuffed to bits). The other man said "Yes. But does it work?" To which he replied "No"

You make it sound as though thats a good thing

I can't actually run your code to try things because I'm running windows 7. Maybe someone else might have more luck installing it. But. Try something like this. Make a copy of the image and transmit the copy.

No I didn't Great minds think alike eh? You talk about it being in the repository, but I'm unable to find it. Maybe it was lost along with the "The Great Crash" since the posts seem from quite a while ago. I wouldn't mind taking a look. Do you have a link? The initial idea was born out of being fed up with writing similar things every time I worked with a new company. Although with this incarnation I wanted a more generic nature by removing a lot of the infrastructure dependency (which probably isn't that visible.....yet;)) and have the ability to cluster rather than rely on a central server (i.e. filtering). That way I can transparently use a distributed architecture. It is really just a multi client/server tracker. ( I also wanted a viable light-weight alternative to DCS. ) I see you also talk about "Topics" which suggests (to me) a single server with segmented data filtered for the particular subscribers (classic pub/sub). I think mine is more content-based where each "Topic" is in fact a dedicated server and after registration or subscription, the Dispatcher has little to do with data.

The IMAQ USB library is ancient.. It was a quick fix before Measurement & Automation explorer supported USB and has many issues such as memory leaks and and the installer has issues with win7. I strongly suggest you use the measurement & automation explorer first and use the image libraries to interface to it. However. To stop the blinking you could try selecting "Synchronous Display" by right-clicking on the image indicator and selecting "Advanced>>Synchronous Display". If that fails then you are probably receiving incomplete/corrupted packets or you are timing out, reading nothing and then updating the display.. The second one is so slow because you have put a 500ms wait in the loop and a receive time-out of 500 ms.Remove the wait ms and use the default time-out (i.e don't wire it)

Sweet.

I'd have forgotten about it by then

My own creation. I thought if /f I really must go to all the effort of downloading, installing, activating and navigating the script stuff. I might as well have some fun

Ouch. Sorry. Isn't meant to. And I tried it in 2009 x32 and x64 and had no problems. My 2009 is known for sudden fits of crashing like just deleting stuff off the diagram. Try again? Diagram looks like this:

http://www.screencast.com/users/Phallanx/folders/Jing/media/6d33f01c-4961-4c88-9944-e3290ab349a0 Remember.I'm not the one promoting a "Design Pattern". I'm only prepared to spend as much effort in discussion as you are!

Why don't you just send me your code and I'll mod it.

Well. For controls ........none. Since I wouldn't use any of them. I'd use something like this: I can't remember off-hand how to get th BD reference (cannot seem to find it in the list). I'll have to dig into my old code for a refresher example (is it only available if scripting is installed and activated?).

You need to first install lapdog_lib_message_library-0.7.0.1.vip which has that class

Maybe worth exploring. But if you edit the case name after insertion (say insert a space then delete it). The broken arrow disappears.

It was a trivial point but I think it improves readability immensely. And (probably in the minority again....but) I will choose readability over elegance if performance is not impacted.. But I want it to fail. Because it means I have given due consideration to an unexpected behaviour and therefore is a part of the designed behaviour. In the absence of similar behaviour in other classes, I almost view this as a NI implementation oversight (and therefore all methods more of a bug fix) rather than a design pattern to be used generically for accessing objects. In most cases (where things are as they should be) it's a performance hit since the probability is that you will be trying invalid cases before stumbling onto the correct one is high. If all t saves is 1 case. Then I see no reason to switch from an accepted, proven method to a shiny new method that may have performance hits and is (slightly) less readable. You'll have to give me more than that (What are the benchmarks comparisons like out of interest? If you don't have time, post an everyday example and I''ll do them) All are as I'd expect EXCEPT graphs. Excused! Indeed I was. (It was late/early is my excuse and I'm sticking to it ) But my point (perhaps explained better after the sleep) was that I didn't need to create a case for EVERY class and subclass. And my memory from over 11 months ago, was that I didn't have t deal with subclasses. It turns out that was because of the consistency of implementation of the property node (In fact to handle any control in PassaMak only required 4 cases. So that's only 1 more than you have above.....for all of 'em).. Well. Get banging on the floor, tool up your Pikachu with an Uzi and tell them to sort the Graph class out Well I didn't miss it. And I didn't miss digital graphs either But. The string based system doesn't "fail". If you hadn't thought about the waveform graph or waveform chart, yours would "fail" too. I'm looking at the graph example and all I can see is that you are replacing a nested case structure with an iteratively nested case structure. Perhaps I need a different perspective?. Hmmm. Now I see no difference between the "string" based system and this one apart from the "string" one will always do it first time, every-time (if it can) but this method has to try a few different ones before either it hits one that works or it runs out of options. Same number of cases because there is no common denominator and each operation has different properties and methods. It seems to me that the graph example is indeed a one-off scenario where you save 1 case. How can you handle cases not originally thought of? If that were possible, you wouldn't have to add the extra cases because it can handle stuff you don't think about Moreover. If you haven't thought about them,how do you know it will handle them correctly? (Wavey lines, Soft fade.....) Many moons ago, in a galaxy far, far away. We used to use a similar approach for instrument identification. The SCPI spec was fluid and manufacturers all had their own way of identifying their device (to some extent that's still true today).. So we would have a list of all the ident commands for all the instruments we supported and try each one in turn until either we ran out or found one that worked Sales called it "Auto-detection". We called it the BFI method (Brute Force and Ignorance) . It was slow and cumbersome and with hindsight, didn't obtain the holy grail of "future proofing" that many believed. It also had a really annoying habit that if a customer happened to stick on an unsupported device that had the same ident command. it'd make them think it was compatible but fall over because the rest of the command set wasn't the same. Eventually, we decided to make it a maintenance issue and that if they swapped out a device for a different one they'd just select it from a drop down list, It was faster, cleaner, easier to maintain and also meant that "if it 'aint on the list, it 'aint getting in". Does this have anything to do with The "Any Cast Design Pattern"? Probably not. But but I'm having flashbacks

OK. Added:D Indeed. The really astounding (is that the right word?) aspect of it is that NI REALLY DO listen to thier customers and the changes are the evidence.

Oh, I don't know. I think some of the changes are really useful (like clusters as control-type icons). But they all seem to be cosmetic changes. So whilst I like the idea of a cleaner diagram, I would (as I think you are suggesting) prefer to see the more meaty ones implemented that enhance the program rather than the prettiness of the diagram. Or maybe that's a sign in itself. That we are having to spend too much time making diagrams "look" good instead of making functional code. But I think Aristos' suggestion is an excellent one (and long overdue). I use it a lot and it would save be bags of time. I'm in the same boat as jgcode so I'll have to create 3 more accounts and hire a medium

Having slept on it (after all wise words from NI are never to be taken lightly). I thought I'd better to refresh my memory. Unfortunately I seem to have remembered correctly (what? No crying emoticon?) as this works as I would expect However, Plot color isn't available, yet it is still common to all plots. Which brings me back to the summation that you have really highlighted a problem of inconsistency of the property node for waveform types since this also works. So. You don't have to create a case for every class and subclass. Only the parent (if at all). Apart from some properties of waveforms (there maybe others but waveforms are the only one I've come across).

Naaaah. I think they should supply them

Really? Its easier to read 0,1,2,3... than WaveFormGraph, WaveformChart, XYGraph... ? I find nested case structures abhorrent. I must admit I didn't even consider the nested error example a solution Even a case structure with many cases causes me to look for an for an alternative. Its the same argument as Sequence Structures. If the case number is small (<6), I'd much rather use a select so its all out in the open. For more then I will try for strings unless its numerical in nature in which case I will do the same as you. ummmm. "So"? Thought I did You mean the difference is that instead typing in the class name you wanted to handle you, would just "Copy Case" and change the cast constant instead? Not really. Because unlike graphs the a property node accepts all the numeric classes for the common properties. Certainly waveformchart,waveformgraph and xygraph don't have child classes. Neither do boolean, cluster etc Numeric types are consistent (whether they be a U16, DBL, slider, knob,gauge or whatever) since all the common properties can be wired to the same property node. The graphs, however (I think) are the exception and it is only because the property node doesn't allow it (which it should) means that you have to handle them differently. I found that out when writing PassaMak.

Hmmm. I don't really see he difference between your using the class name "problem" example and using an iterative apart from the class name has a descriptive case name and the iterative "trial and error" just has 0,1,2 etc. You still have to have a case to handle the particular type to do the correct cast but with the iterative approach you have to try all the previous ones first before deciding its not supported. With the class name its either supported or not. Is there another benefit I'm missing?