crelf

Oh - I gotcha. Yeah, I think that creating a distrubution where the reuse components have a different namespace is totally fine. The example you gave is valid IMHO. Actually, I think it's one of the most important features of VIPM - we have a repository of packages on a server, so our projects' VIPCs (every project has one, and it's under SCC) all contain external packages. That said, when we need to get project code to customers, we create a VIPC that has all of the packages internal. VIPM is, of course, smart enough to be able to scan the project and only include the packages that are used in it, so our customers don't end up with our whole reuse library - only those packages that the project needs. We sometimes create "external" versions of our packages (we have two repositories: internal and external) - ie: with BDs removed, or crippled in some other way, and VIPM helps us do all of that pretty easily.

Sure, that's totally fine. When you think about it, your exe is there and you read it. I'm looking into doing more stuff in the registry actually - I figure if it's local data that the application needs access to (and needs to be able to edit it) then it should be in the regisrty, whereas if the user needs access to it then it needs to be in their folders. Nothing that I've done a lot of research into as yet, so maybe someone else could comment? I figure I can create a reuse compnent that is essentially a drop-in replacement for the ini file read/writes...

TestStand's just like LabVIEW in that you can get some pretty cool stuff going with it almost out of the box. To be a true TS guy? That takes a lot of time Yep, then that's a state machine. Smart move - we also put multiple IVI calls with some extra stuff in some of our custom steps to streamline our sequences.

If it was in a package when you got it, then (as long as it's license allows) you should distribute it the same way (ie: don't just copy out three VIs from the OpenG array package, include the whole package instead). Not very efficient, but it's generally what the packaged components' license agreements require. As for "not unpackaged" packages referring strictly to vip and ogp - I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean VIs that you got from someone else but they didn't come as VIPM-compatible packages? If so, then sure - include them as dependant subVIs (again, if the licensing allows you to). I'm not sure if that's what you're asking - can you please elaborate a bit on what you're trying to do? Personally, I'd create a vipc with external dependencies for anything that's available naively through the VIPM network (eg: OpenG, public JKISoft packages), and include internal dependencies for those that aren't (this keeps your submission size down, and our servers' HD requirements down, and makes everything available to everyone with an internet connection).

Firstly, there's a difference between a state machine and a sequence machine. If all you've got is a sequence machine then TestStand is a great solution (not to mention all the stuff that's built into it like sequence control, IVI layers, direct DAQ, database communiation, etc). It's also much easier to validate when you're looking at dicrete components (like your LabVIEW VIs - they can have unit tests so you're sure you're on the right track during development), as well as OTS tracability (you don't need to proove that your sequencing engine works, just the sequence itself).

Well said. 10 years is a pretty short time to turn data into information in this instance. Hey - last winter was colder than the winter before, therefore global warming doesn't exist, right? My understanding is that the atmospheric temperature isn't the concern (yet), it's more the ocean temperatures rising. For goodness sake - stop throwing mud when you're doing exactly the same thing! you've listed 5 bad practises, and shown us 1 example that backs up 1 example of 1 of them! ...and you haven't backed up the "nefarious" comment. I tried to steer this thread toward what I thought you wanted: I though you were after a sensible discussion of the facts, and how left keep making unfounded accusations, but here you are doing exactly the same thing. What do you want from this thread? Are you just using it as a sounding board because you're cranky with the flu? If so, I'll stop posting now. If you're actually interested in finding out the truth, or even discussing how both sides manipulate data to their own ends, then I'll stick around. But you need to choose which topic you want to discuss. Well put. An old physics professor of mine once said "there is no bad data, just bad interpretations". I totally agree that if scientists are found willingly changing data then they need to be hung, drawn and quartered. The problem is that (for the most part) a lot of the data is in formats that is difficult, if not impossible, for the general public to digest - that's when "commentators" come in to play, and try to interpret the data - sometimes to their own end So, I don't think that we can call global wamring/climate change/the greenhouse eefect a scam just because some sicentists have fiddled with some numbers. That is so totally the issue here - not wether climate change is happening, but that the data is being skewed by both sides to their own ends. Wouldn't it be great if we all looked at the data and could understand it so that didn't have to "beleive" anything? Now we're starting to get into the world of religion

Boom boom! Because, for every sane person in the world that reseraches and thereby recognizes the bunkum, there's at least 2 bogans that are willing to donate to the cause...

I figure what Paul G. is commenting on is that climate change is a "scam", and while you've got some interesting points, let's keep it on that very narrow topic as to discuss it with more clarity. If I may summarise the portion of your post that's on topic: your answer to my "What's in it for the scientists that say it's true?" question is that their doomsday results increase the probabilty of their programmes' further funding. Got any references to back that up? Come back to me when you do. I'm not saying that you're wrong or right, but, as a semi-retired scientist, I'm sick of wild (and not so wild) accusations of my kind. Without merit these accusations are misguided at best, calumniative at worst.

OCG!!!! One part of the Internet says it's true, another says it's false! What is the world coming to?!?! Who should we beleive?!?! Ok - I'll bite - tell us why it's a scam. What's in it for the scientists that say it's true? ...and don't forget to include (preferrably reputable, if that's at all possible) references.

Sure is Nerd.

Thanks for all the congrats folks - we appreciate it! I'm going to print this thread out and stick it in his baby book

Y'all will have to live without both my pearls of wisdom and my smart-asre-ery for a few days - my missus gave birth to our son, Elliott Darcy Relf last night. Mum and bub are doing well, Dad needs sleep.

Where in the world is it a Monday?!?

I'd love to but it's IP that I'm not willing to share - sorry I've got the SetParent stuff if you're interested in that - I think I've already posted it here somewhere...

Done it heaps of times - used a combination of user32.dll calls to parent items to a workspace window (look for the SetParent function), and templates + scripting to dynamically create the items and their components.

That's a really good point Yair - a lot of people forget that those components have RTEs as well. Just because they automatically (or almost automatically) update in the background doesn't mean that they're not taking up a bunch of your bandwidth to download and a significant portion of your drivespace.

I'm not sure, but I doubt it - I think you're given the right to distribute the RTE and it's components, but I'm not sure if you're allowed to distribute it in any way other than it's entirety. I don't think they'd be interested in supporting anything other than the full install, but I don't think they'd be upset if a cut-down version exisited. Anyone from NI care to chime in if you're listening? Might be a good question to ask NI directly.

No need to delete the thread - it might be of use for someone someday.

Just in case your baby has number threes:

Sounds like a sorority house party

Here's the text from that pdf:

Our webstore is here.

Yes, but it's high quality We'd love to lower the prices on all our merchandise (hey - the more people sporting the LAVA logo = the more the LAVA message gets out there!) but the lower limit is set by the webstore, and we've lowered the prices to the lowest that they'll let us.

I think that the take away is that whilst you certainly can pass certification(s) without training, it's easier if you do have training.

Now you're thinkin'!