crelf

I haven't quite figured out what RTX is but it seems to be similar, where Windows and RT reside on the same machine.

LabVIEW RT used to come in two flavours: ETS (the way it is now - RT running on a target) and ETS (the method you linked to above).

So; is everyone an Aussie on International Australia Day, or do we just WISH we were?

Depends if you're eating lamb.

Oh, and if you're from New Zealand. New Zealander's always wish they were Aussies - they don't need a special day for that.

Thanks for your reply. Attached is the basic code, which I use that get those errors.

The code seems okay - where are you getting the error? Do you get the error when only one of the loops is enabled (ie: put a disable structure around one of them)?

I don't think you have a bandwidth problem at all - it's a memory issue. Can you upload your code so we can look at it?

I can help with some of these questions, as I manage the Real-Time Hypervisor product for NI.

Excellent summary Casey - thanks for getting back to us!

Ya, that's pretty accurate Jeff did a whole lot of work on the 3rd edition. I did an unimaginable amount of work. I don't have to tell you, crelf, about that

No you don't. I told my wife to beat me over the head with my book if I ever get the idea to write another one

That said, I've got an idea to write another one - just don't tell my wife!

Interesting accent, he must be either Australian or New Zealand.

Don't make me slap you.

Wow!

I have an INI file (CK.ini) that I want to read in from a file, I create a cluster that matches section1 of my ini file, then wire that cluster to the Read VI, then I wire the variant outcome of the Read VI to the Variant To Data (also need to wire the cluster to this)...then I have my original cluster back. (Thanks Yair)then I just unbundle the cluster.

Speaking of Labview for Everyone, we all know who Jim Kring is, but who is Jeffery Travis and why isn't he on the forums?

Jeff used to be a plretty big playa in the LabVIEW world (he was the guy that started open source LabVIEW), but he hasn't been involved in software engineering in a while (yes, he's the Flatland guy). Jeff wrote the previous editions of LabVIEW for Everyone, which is why, I assume, his name is still on the book - I figure the 3rd edition is mostly Jim's work.

The "science" of GW/"CC" is far from settled.

Sure - but so is the science against it. There are inseparable - you can't confirm one without denying the other.

You might want to check this out too.

Ok, so I took the OOP class (within the last few months) and now I am more confused than before I took the class.

That's really really sad mate - the NI LVOOP course is an *excellent* course! I'd put it up there with NI's best, including the RT course.

There was a LV Architect in the class and it seems that his only reason for taking the class was so he could argue with the teacher. About everything. The entire class. This really made it difficult to really get any value from the course and i'd loved to have strangled the guy. But I didnt.

Sounds like whoever was teaching the course might have been able to manage that a little better...

Calling all TestStand users!

While I love TestStand, I've got some ideas on how it could be improved, and I'm sure you do too. NI recently launched a new platform for getting and tracking ideas on how to improve thier products called the NI Idea Exchange. If you haven't seen what it's about, see the intro video here and then have a wander through the wildly successful LabVIEW Idea Exchange here.

There's already a LabVIEW Idea Exchange, a LabVIEW RT Idea Exchange and a LabVIEW FPGA Idea Exchange, so why not a TestStand Idea Exchange? Well, setting it up and supporting it takes time and resources, so, we need to let NI know that we think having one is worthwhile. If you're interested in furthering the development of TestStand, you need to let NI know that you're interested in a TestStand Idea Exchange! If the idea of a TestStand Idea Exchange appeals to you, please post here to show your support.

Crosspost from here.

What are the circle things supposed to be on the cover of this book?

Concentric happiness.

What was that? A sounding Borat?

Is very nice!

If you can use portable media, you can install OpenG & JKI packages onto a PC that's not connected to the internet.

Right, and if you're allowed to download and install VIPM then I can't see why you wouldn't be allowed to download and install OpenG and JKI packages using the same method...

All that being said, I could take my current development laptop home (it's not considered one of our acquisition computers) and download there. After that, are the any issues with running the Professional version off the net? Or should I be asking Jim these questions?

Unless you want to use VIs available thorugh the VI Package Network (like OpenG and JKI sutff) then you don't need to be connected to the internet to use VIPM internally - you can just set up and access your reuse packages internally (or off an internal network using the enterprise edition of VIPM).

I use user.lib just for generic tools. Nothing application dependent. Most of the code I reuse across applications is reading/writing file formats, performing basic analysis functions (mostly of the FFT variety). Other users want to use the file format we've developed for the Big Project so they can use my analysis tools. So I am deliberately using code from Big Project in those other projects.

That sounds like the second step most people do in the re-use road (the first step is to recognise that you need reuse ). Monolithic reuse libraries are nothing new, but they aren't really a solution. They work great for a while, but the quickly become unmanageable, and are usually left to die

As I said in my original post, I haven't had any problem managing this until recently. Maybe I need a library called reuse.lib where anything that's cross-application goes. Or maybe I just need remedial source code control tutoring.

Actually, none of those will really solve your reuse dilema - sounds like you need VIPM - seriously.

Guess what, I just did a quick search and there is a product which will fit the bill

I knew there had to be something out there that did this!

"...the boot sequence can be specified, and when desired, an operating system can be rebooted independently of the other(s). In order to facilitate communication between operating systems, the RTS solution also provides a configurable user-shared memory as well as a TCP/IP based virtual network driver."

That is uber-cool!

Check out this RTS Real Time Embedded Hypervisor.

Okay, so now the question becomes: what does NI's Hypervisor have that this one doesn't?

A lsightly-related question: I wonder if you can do something in parallel(ish) with virtual machines (I guess it depends on just what level of jitter you'll accept, and your reasons for having an RT system).

Lets say I have a Quad core CPU (oh, that's right I actually do..), anyway what if I could force the Operating system to only run on 2 of those cores and LabVIEW (not LV RT) run on the other two cores (perhaps under another O/S ?). This way LV wouldn't be interrupted by random O/S activity and would have closer RT behaviour.

I like these sort of thought experiments. Yes, you'd need another OS for your LabVIEW code to run on, but I'm not sure how you'd boot it. Also, there's the shared hardware outside of the CPU that you'd need to consider (buses and memory and peripherals, oh my!) I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it'd sure be fun to try... Perhaps there are already untilities out there that allow you to split the cores? How would you communicate between the LabVIEW RT-ish OS and the host? I guess if you have 2 network cards in there (one for each OS) and plugged in a cross-over cable?

I use projects a little differently than Chris. I prefer to keep any file I consider "editable" as part of the project. That way I can organize them in virtual folders in a way that makes sense. The code in dependencies is typically from user.lib, vi.lib, and those kinds of places. In other words, it's reuse code that has built and distributed. If I see reuse code in dependencies that isn't in user.lib, it usually means I've accidentally linked to the source code and I need to fix it.

I agree with almost all of that - I don't think our models are so different, except that I don't keep *all* of my project-specific (you called it "editable") code in the project - only stuff I expect to edit, or higher level VIs where I can drill down a level or two to those other project-specific VIs tha I might need to change once or twice. Otherwise I can see the project space getting a little unruly. That said, there are cases when I'll have almost everything specifically listed in myu project (ie: not in dependancies).

I am glad you did not. your willingness to act a sounding borad is greatly appreciated.

Thanks Ben - I'm really glad you said that - it means a lot to me

...this debate is mostly pointless (which is basically why I haven't participated at all in this discussion).

I wish I had done the same.