Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden

This thread on the dark-side http://forums.ni.com/ni/board/message?board.id=170&message.id=245990#M245990 is a very in-depth discusion of the event structure and who gets waht when and under what conditions. It is not lite reading but it digs into every hole we could think of. Ben

At edit time you can just slam all of the strings into a Ring control and then replace the ring with an enum. The resulting enum will keep the strings from the ring. Ben

I don't play football or politics but I am a spectator for both. We sometimes hear of a medical doctor moving into politics but I have never heard of any engineers doing such (since Jimmy Carter of course). I (being an arogant science type) think it is because engineers and scientist are too smart to do that. What other reasons can you think of to exaplin why the brightest amoung us shy away from politics? Ben

have you concidered using an web browser in an ActiveX container? Ben

Its a cultural thing. Just be happy the racoon does not sit down and start playing the bongos. Ben http://www.boingboing.net/2003/11/27/red-riding-hood-danc.html

RE: Is Sibling A method in the top parent class that returns its call chain with default over-ride methods in all of the childern and sub children will retunr the heritage of any child class. See this image of the code in the top parent Get_Tree. It works for me. Ben

I can't say it has an official name but that wire pattern over-laps with the rules for working in-place. This thread on the Dark-side http://forums.ni.com/ni/board/message?board.id=170&view=by_date_ascending&message.id=191864#M191864 includes posts by Greg McKaskle exaplaining how we can construct our diagrams such that sub-VI can work in the buffers of their callers. I have reviewed LVOOP code using that tidbit and LVOOP seems to be 100% consistant with that idea. Ben

Hi alfa, I am probably alone in this thought but I'll say it anyway. I admire your persistance and bravery in speaking your mind. I hope that when the time comes I will be able to muster a fraction of your stength to do what has to be done. Ben

That is what you have to do. Just replace the frame with your own image that has a full frame. Ben

Set the clock on the PCs ahead 3 hours on Tues or Thurs. I was dead serious in my previous reply. Start by being honest with yourself about if you can continue doing his job plus yours and then honest with him that you are killing yourself etc trying do his work plus yours. Ben

Shaun expressed the idea much better than I. This idea goes beyond the monkey idea becasue an outside entity has to decide if the work is really Shakespeare while the nature of the newly cloned child will decide if it is a "rose" (viable code) or an ill formed bud (broken VI) and, Shakespeares' work need help to reproduce. Ben

"oh what a tngled web we weive when first we pratcie to decieve." (W. Shakespear?) 1) Stop lying, you are making ot worse on yourself. 2) Talk to Stupid and share your thought and feelings. 3) Try talking to Stupid with a common person that you both respect. 4) Talk to your boss. When you are doing your talking don't accuse or name call. Confess your short-coming and your concerns for Stupid. So speak the truth, and be honest with your feelings both in your internal dialog and your outward expresions. Ben

I was not fully awake on Saturday AM when it hit me that scripting combined with LVOOP and a bat file (if you are on Windows) maybe enough to get some new life-forms developing on our machines. 1) Bat files runs a Prime-mover.VI that is a member of a class Life-Form and exist. 2) Prime-Mover Copies its project to a new loaction and using scripting generates a child class with random code and does this say 100 times for 100 possible children. 3) A new bat file is generated for each of the children and are run before Prime-mover exits. All of the children that result in bad code will not run. Eventually a randomly generated VI will actullay run and then clone itself, and generate another generation of children etc. But the above just covers survives or does not survive. So if I modify the Prime-mover such that also evaluates the quality of itself (and by inheritance, itself) based on the number of Quality points it can earn by posting to LAVA, AND We give it an copy of the LV help to chew on... Would it still tell us the answer is 42? Ben

That term sounded odd when I first heard from my wife but that is what they call themselves. Re: Groups name... I don't think even my wife would have figured that one out with have been spoon fed the "pealing" part. Ben

Has anyone been to a hard-core hand bell concert? The extreme ringers are very impresive. I heard an arangement of "The Navy Hymn" that sounded like the ocean. Soloists are amazing! Holding multiple bells in each hand and changing off as the melody shifts. It almost looks like musical juggling. Ben

Alas, a lowly WORM Global is not enough. The read of a non-written WORM would have to hang, Timeout, or return an error (a WORM with a options?). Htat is too much scope creep for me. Ben

From where I sit, yes, provided the developer knows that fact and uses the First Call. But a global by itself can have a problem. So returning to your orignial Q, a global by itself could be dangerous. Now on the other hand... If LVOOP only allowed us to use a NEW flavor of global maybe called a WORM (Write Once Read Many) Global, taht had the first call built in, I would stop pick at this idea. The other plus of the WORM Global is that I would be able stand behind Yair's age old idea of using Globals for defining constants. Ben

I was refering to the wire that presents the data to the Enqueue node. AS I understand it (please correct anything I get wrong!). A queue can trasfer data "in-place". The bufer hold ing the data when it is queued is the same buffer that holds the data when it is dequeud. This is only possible if the buffer is not subject to change as in the case where a single wire feeds a queue but is used for something else that LV thinks could change it. In that case the forked wire creates a new buffer so the queue can transfer in-place and the other code can do whatever. So the fork in the queueing code move the work of copying the bufer to that thread. If you do not fork the wire, queue the data, then deque and fork to two additional queues (now I am getting carried away) the work of copying the buffer is now done in the recieving thread. Just sharing how I understand it. Feel free to correct me. Ben

Have YOU been looking at my Library? (Smiley-wink) I follow you right up until I have two seperate threads running that both try to set the method when they start. From what I read in your reply, the developer is responsible for ensuring only one entity tries to do use the Set method. I don't see how a global will protect against this issue without introducing semaphores etc, and by the time we go there we might as well use the SEQ. Thank you, Ben

Queues kick-arse particularly if you don't fork the wire fedding them. If you have to fork, let a down-stream thread do the forking. Watch your CPU load while testing. If you have a proccessor or two left over you may be able to "divide and conquer" routine or if all of the CPU is used, then we should turn our concern to making to consumers eat faster. Ben

Quick check to ensure the LV2 is not a bottleneck. Get rid of teh call to the LV and replace it with data of the same size and type. If ther jitter goes down it may be the LV2 is a bottleneck. NOTE: If you set your LV2 to sub-routine priority, you will pick-up a new call option "skip if Busy" that is very helpful in preventing one thread from hanging waiting on a LV2. Ben

If my ears are working right this is the first time I have had a chance to speak with you. Nice to meet you and thanks for the reply. So these globals would be read-only? i can see how the single-element qeue has built-in protection but if I am crating two instances of the class at teh same time, SOMEBODY has to write to them and who will win with protecting the global with semaphores? Ben

1) Easy is not better. 2) A simple get set does have the same trouble as globals, yes. This is why I recomend AEs since their structure brings with them implied resource locking. I would not use a simple get-set LV2 for the same reason i would not use a global. Add to your list of reasons to not use a global "Global use can thow off determinism!" See this thread. http://forums.ni.com...75255&jump=true where I swore off the globals once and for all. Regarding when it would be appropriate to use globals in LVOOP... Q Wouldn't a global restrict the proper operation of a class to single instance? If I wanted two instances of that class, isn't there a possiblity that the two instance could be hitting the same global in differnet ways? Ben

I used to use VI Server to deploy a background process for each "plug-in" that could support the interface, and provided a generic interface so that all of the various plug-ins looked the same. Shane's Nugget found here http://forums.ni.com/ni/board/message?board.id=170&message.id=255002&query.id=917330#M255002 maybe helpful. Ben

With that clarified then I'll proceed wi the "Why". 1) At least one data copy is required when using a property node. 2) Property nodes execute in the UI thread, so the code has to be switched to another thread and wiat for its turn to run in that thread. Ben