Jump to content

Rolf Kalbermatter

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Rolf Kalbermatter last won the day on January 23

Rolf Kalbermatter had the most liked content!

Community Reputation



About Rolf Kalbermatter

  • Rank
    LabVIEW Aficionado
  • Birthday 06/28/1966

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Contact Methods

LabVIEW Information

  • Version
    LabVIEW 2011
  • Since

Recent Profile Visitors

9,761 profile views
  1. There are various packages around that do different things to different degree. Most of them are actually APIs that existed in the early days of Windows already. Things that come to mind would be querying the current computer name, user name or allowing to actually authenticate with the standard Windows credentials. Others are dealing with disk functionality although the current LabVIEW File Nodes offer many of those functionalities since they were reworked in LabVIEW 8.0. then there are the ubiquitous window APIs that allow to control LabVIEW and other application windows. As far as LabVIEW i
  2. While I prefer non-violence, I definitely feel more for a sword than a gun. It has some style. 😎
  3. The potential is there and if done well (which always remains the question) might be indeed a possibility to integrate into the import library wizard. But it would be a lot of work in an area that very few people really use. The Win32API is powerful but not the complete answer to God, the universe and everything. Also there are areas in Windows you can not really access through that API anymore. In addition I wonder what the motivation at Microsoft is for this, considering their push to go more and more towards UWP, which is an expensive abbreviation for a .Net only Windows kernel API without
  4. My experience comes from the other side. We have started with SVN some 15 years ago or so and while it has limits it worked quite well for us. There are additional limitations because of the binary character of LabVIEW files, but GIT doesn't add anything to the game there really. I have been exposed to GIT in recent years because of customers using it and also from dabbling in some Open Source projects that use GIT and I have to say the experience is overwhelming at first. SVN certainly has its limits but it's working model is pretty simple and straightforward to understand. And it has always
  5. I would agree with Shaun. Looking at the link you provide, the podcasts on that page are typical marketing speak. Many nice words about a lot of hot air. Now, I'm not going to say it is unimportant in nowadays time. Much of our overhyped and overheated economy is about expensive sounding words and lots and lots of people wanting to believe them. In so far it certainly has influence and importance, no matter how artificial it may be. The problem I see with that is that there is little substantial content in the form of real assets that back the monetary value of the whole. It's mostly about abs
  6. What would the named pipe achieve? How do you intend to get the image into the named pipe in the first place? If you need to write C code to access the image from the SDK and put it into a named pipe in order to receive it in LabVIEW through the Pipe VIs, you could just as well write it to disk instead and read it through the LabVIEW File IO functions. Functionally it is not different at all, while the File IO is million times proven to work and the Pipe interface has a lot more potential problems. If your SDK driver has a way to simply put everything automatically into a pipe then it may
  7. Most likely a cerebral shortcut with his more involved SQLLite library he has worked on so relentlessly over the years. 😀 There is a good chance that the Windows version of the PostgreSQL library is compiled in a way that supports multithreading calls while the Linux version may not. With the CLN set to UI thread, LabVIEW will always switch to the UI thread before invoking the library call, resulting that all such CLNs are always called in the same thread. With "Call in any thread" enabled, LabVIEW will call the shared library function in whatever thread the VI is executing itself. A VI i
  8. Data buffer handling and especially callback functions really requires you to write an intermediate shared library in C(++) to translate between LabVIEW and your driver API. Memory management in LabVIEW has some specific requirements that you need to satisfy and usually goes against what such drivers expect to use. They are written with C programming techniques in mind, which is to say the caller has to adhere to whatever the library developer choose to use. LabVIEW on the other hand is a managed environment with a very specific memory management that supports its dataflow paradigma. Ther
  9. The fact that VIPM does require a restart of LabVIEW is probably a good indication as to what it does. 1) enumerate all installed LabVIEW versions 2) read the labview.ini in that location and extract the VI server settings 3) if user changes the settings for a LabVIEW version, update the LabVIEW.ini file and require a restart On restart LabVIEW reads the LabVIEW.ini file and all is according to what VIPM wanted it. Simple and no hidden vodoo magic at all.
  10. https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/05/qt_lts_goes_commercial_only/ One more issue about using QT unless you are fully commercial already anyhow.
  11. Yes, except that without WinSxS you had one problem, with WinSxS you end up having several more problems! 😀 While maintaining binary compatibility across library versions requires some real discipline, abandoning that and trying to solve it with something like WinSxS is simply getting you further down the rabbit hole.
  12. Welcome back. Enjoy it!
  13. XWindows is not the main problem, although admittedly not the most easy API to tackle UI drawing. I think QT would be a lot easier but there you have licensing issues if you are not a truly open source project. But XWindows as an API is pretty standardized and has very few of the problems Shaun alluded too. But XWindows is just a basic UI API. Once you want to tackle things that are more user related you end up with a myriad of different desktop management standards that are all fundamentally different and while there were some attempts to standardize things they are usually not much more than
  14. The problem with the argument about better mergeability if LabVIEW would use a text based file format is that XML and really any format that can represent more complex data structures, can not easily be merged with current tools. It doesn't even fully work for normal text based languages as the merge tool can NOT determine what to do when two code modifications occurred at the same or immediately adjacent line location in a text file. You end up with conflicts that have to be resolved manually. While that is doable although not fully painless for normal text based languages, XML and similar f
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.