shoneill

QUOTE (jdunham @ Nov 12 2008, 03:10 AM) :thumbup:

QUOTE (jdunham @ Nov 11 2008, 09:48 PM) Ah, that's true indeed. I actually used to wonder about the warning from a VISA read to the tune of "The amount of Bytes read was equal to the amount requested, there may be more to read". I used to think Duh!, stupid computer but now (After all these years doing RS-232 interfacing) I actually understand why that warning is there. I've always had to deal with Instruments returning either fixed-length replies or short replies, so I never ran into the real-world case that a reply needed more than one VISA read to accomplish. Thanks for that flash of insight... :ninja: Shane.

QUOTE (Jon Sjöstedt @ Nov 11 2008, 12:34 PM) Well I guess most messages are shorter than the byte limit.... I'm a bit rusty, but assuming the termination character gets returned along with any text on the port..... It would also be possible to check the received string for 1. Size (if it's 999 Bytes long, chances are there's more data to be read 2. If the last character in the received string is the termination character Concatenating the strings should be easy enough after that. Nothing ugly about it. Shane.

QUOTE (TobyD @ Nov 10 2008, 06:18 PM) If you're certain the termination character is being sent, telling the VI to read a silly large number of bytes (999 for example) then the VI will only terminate after whichever one of these three things happens first 1. 999 Bytes are read 2. Timeout is reached 3. Termination character was read (Independent of the number of bytes until that moment). Shane.

All that and the problem of patent protection of .NET. Basically, Novell is safe due to their big "Patent deal" with Microsoft, but IIRC no other Linux supplier is freed of any patent (litigation) burden from Redmond. As such, Mono support in LV would likely be a Novell-Linux only deal. Hardly inspiring. I personally hope Mono goes away. I don't trust certain large software companies and their patent portfolios. Shane.

QUOTE (TobyD @ Nov 4 2008, 12:10 AM) Nope. There seems indeed to be no "Remove Element" available on my machine either. I'm using LV 8.2.1. Maybe it's easier to set the values to default values (Some newly created event which is never called?) and then just submit it to the Rube Goldberg section on the NI forum..... Shane.

QUOTE (jcarmody @ Nov 3 2008, 03:36 PM) I was working in C# at the time, so I don't have any LabVIEW examples at all.... If you want a C# example (The .NET objects are the same......) I can deliver that. Shane.

QUOTE (Phillip Brooks @ Nov 3 2008, 08:20 PM) Wow Philip. Good catch. Missed that one totally. Humour, go figure! Shane.

QUOTE (jcarmody @ Nov 3 2008, 04:03 AM) Assuming you're working on Windows, there's a SQlite.net component available over at http://sqlite.phxsoftware.com/ I've used it and it's quite easy to use. Probably quite a bit easier then direct linking to a DLL. Check out the benchmarking section on the site regarding run-time performance. I switched to SQLite.net from SQL compact and saw dramatic improvements in search times in my DBs. I think SQLite is pretty well optimised, even though they don't support some functionality found in other DBs (Like proper foreign key support). Shane.

QUOTE (alfa @ Nov 1 2008, 10:07 AM)

QUOTE (JFM @ Oct 24 2008, 10:06 AM) To paraphrase my favourite Coen brothers film "Alfa abides." Shane.

QUOTE (alfa @ Oct 23 2008, 10:05 AM) Yawn. :thumbdown:

QUOTE (normandinf @ Oct 16 2008, 05:20 PM) Well since I was (supposedly) the one doing the explaining, shouldn't the apology be from me? Just do whatever AQ says (or writes). Where's the "Set current value to default" for these Forums :worship: Shane. Ps Forgot the actual apology.... Sorry (for forgetting). Sorry (For confusion).

QUOTE (normandinf @ Oct 16 2008, 03:47 PM) Well I was under the impression that you don't NEED to know the internal class representation. Even casting all objects in an array to a base class will still call the CORRECT dynamic dispatch VI when using those objects. So just casting an object as a parent class does not make it suddenly call the parent version of a dynamic dispatch VI. It will still call the correct dynamic dispatch VI. The QUEUE/notifier/Event simply avoids variant which could otherwise be problematic. As AQ has already stated, a single VI with a dynamic dispatch call will do the trick. My idea was to have this VI AQ is referring to within the class, in essence moving the "dynamic dispatch" part up one level. Getting the exact VI refnum might be problematic though, so AQ's solution gets around that. Shane. Shane.

QUOTE (MJE @ Oct 16 2008, 05:29 AM) You can launch the VI and then send the actual object via user event, queue or notifier. The launched VI waits for this information (You can pass the event refnum or further via VI server before running it) and then launches the base class of the Dynamic dispatch VI which will retain the "dynamic dispatch" part. This way you don't have to go via Variant. So what I'm saying is that the code for launching the VI without waiting belongs IN the class. That way you should be able to do what you are looking for without sacrificing the automatic dynamic dispatch handling. Shane.

QUOTE (rolfk @ Oct 6 2008, 10:42 AM) Irish living in Switzerland with a Romanian wife. Shane.

QUOTE (alfa @ Oct 4 2008, 09:12 AM) That didn't answer my question.

QUOTE (alfa @ Oct 2 2008, 09:45 AM) So which are you then? 1. Dishonest 2. dirty communist 3. prostitute Shane.

QUOTE (BrokenArrow @ Sep 19 2008, 03:54 PM) Same here. LVOOP is the KILLER argument for using projects if you haven't up until now. Shane.

QUOTE (crelf @ Sep 18 2008, 04:05 PM) Hey, I never said it wasn't entertaining.... Shane

QUOTE (alfa @ Sep 18 2008, 09:27 AM) Right. OK. This has just reached new levels of silliness. Shane.

QUOTE (brian @ Sep 17 2008, 08:30 PM) OK. Thanks for the clarification. I was kind of hoping you're let something slip about LabVIEW on a Cell processor :ninja: ....... Shane

QUOTE (brian @ Sep 17 2008, 04:19 PM) Well then which processors were you referring to with "Note that non-Intel processors generally behave better in this area.". Shane.

QUOTE (Aristos Queue @ Sep 17 2008, 06:54 AM) ?? Please explain..... Reference to Dynamic dispatch? Can't be since it's already in.... Hmmm. Shane.

QUOTE (brian @ Sep 12 2008, 05:36 PM) Maybe a reason to go for a Phenom instead of a Core2Quad then...... That and 16GB RAM support? When's LV 64-bit coming out? Anyone have a comparison between an Intel and AMD chip in this regard? Shane.