Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE (Aristos Queue @ Apr 7 2009, 12:48 AM) Very right here. Sometimes I wonder if starting up my PC might not already be some violation of some license agreement I somehow, sometime clicked away without really bothering to read it . Not that this would bother me to much as I have good hope that such a license agreement would not be enforceable in any way, but still. While I also loved to know how software worked back then I usually only went as far as getting things apart to the point where I could see how I could go around whatever protection there was. At that point the attraction somehow went away to go further but I had some friends that for sure did it for the hack itself and wouldn't be satisfied before they could distribute a tape (C64 ) with the cracked software and at least a screen hacked into the game somewhere with their alias in it. My brother and me instead took older C64 apart and rebuild them to control the light show in a disco club. You could say the first attempts at embedded development and it was cheap too, if you didn't account for the hours , which at that time wasn't a fully paid job anyhow. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE (crelf @ Apr 6 2009, 05:11 PM) Ah but last time I checked the shortcut menus of build-in LabVIEW objects seemed still to be straight coded up in the LabVIEW C source code and not some hidden LabVIEW VI somewhere. So that seems like a problem to me :headbang: Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE (xavier30 @ Apr 6 2009, 08:36 AM) Or the libraries g++ 3.4 uses are buggy. It has happened before. Open source doesn't mean bug free! Or using g++ 3.2 only hides the problem for now and there is still a bug in your shared lib. Just because a shared lib is not crashing does really not mean to much about it not having illegal pointer releases or accesses. It could just happen to occurr in a situation that does not crash for the moment and semmingly small changes in the code or even in the LabVIEW app can trigger the crash. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE (Neville D @ Apr 3 2009, 03:54 PM) At least someone cleaned them up in the meantime aligning the nodes wires and added error clusters. The old code when it was acquired by NI definitely was about how NOT to write proper LabVIEW code. It violated just about every style guideline that was ever released about how to code LabVIEW VIs. I wonder if the original C code behind it was just as messy, but doubt it as it would be almost impossible to make such a big and complex piece of SW work at all then. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE (Klompmans @ Mar 31 2009, 10:02 AM) Well I have to say that in the old days I was wishing this too a lot. Before starting with LabVIEW a long time ago, I had worked with a graphical aditor called ged. This was a Unix graphical editor usable for all kinds of things but in our case we were drawing schematic designs with it. It had a pretty fixed UI: a big drawing area, a button bar on the right border with clickable commands (configurable with a configuration file as to what exact command they should do), and a command line on the lower edge where you could also type in all the commands from the button bar as well as many more. The design was stored on disk as a ASCI file and could then be used as input to various other tools such as a PCB editor or an ASIC development toolchain. I was rarely using the buttons on the button bar but almost constantly typing the abbreviated commands. Sure it required some time to get used to the commands but once you knew them there was no way someone using the mouse could even get close in speed :laugh: . When starting to work with LabVIEW I loved almost everything about it except the lack of such a command line interface. However that was in the days of LabVIEW 3 and there was no way one could get access to the LabVIEW interna like it is possible now with the scripting interface. There was supposedly a much opener C interface to the LabVIEW kernel (anyone remember tools like SurfaceVIEW or the predecessor to the Vision Toolkit developed by Graftek, or the first version of the Picture Control, who all made use of methods in that C interface not exposed in such a way anymore since a long time) but to be able to use that, one had to basically be intimate with a lot of the LabVIEW interna in a way that was impossible for someone not having worked in the LabVIEW development team. I think QuickDrop is a good addition but in my case it is about 10 years to late . I'm not sure I still feel like memorizing keyboard shortcuts for various operations that have gotten so ingrained in my cerebral system that I only have to think about them when something about them has changed between LabVIEW versions :laugh: . That is also why I hate it so much (loat it actually) that the function palettes get reshuffled with almost every new version. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE (EHM @ Apr 3 2009, 02:57 AM) No problem here with that URL when I use the OpenG HTTP VIs. I'm not using a proxy but this shouldn't really be a problem. Go get those VIs (there is no HTTP OpenG package yet so you have to get them from the sourceforge CVS repository) and look at them. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE (manojba @ Apr 3 2009, 02:27 AM) No. While the VI is not executing, the menu bar and toolbar will always be visible. And you really should rethink your application design. A VI that has to be started with the run button is ok if it is a lab type experimental setup to be run in the LabVIEW IDE. But once you built an application you want it to behave as such and not as VI. So create a main loop in your diagram with an event structure inside and make a start button or something on the front panel to start whatever operation you have in your VI now. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE (Mark Yedinak @ Apr 3 2009, 02:43 AM) Are you sure you have really enabled "Defer Front Panel Updates". 3.2 ms for an Add Item Tree element sounds fairly long although I don't have specific numbers. Or was this 3.2 ms with an already heavily populated tree? I do think the suggestion to built up an internal data structure first that represents your tree as an array of clusters and after that populate the tree from that is probably not a bad one. It also gives you better performance check abilities to see if the file enumerating or the tree population is really munching up the big part of your processing time. The other suggestion to only update the tree as it is getting needed (when a folder item is expanded) would be my first approach anyhow. No need to go through a lengthy recursive folder enumeration when the user newer will look at 99% of those items anyhow. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE (ssteven121 @ Apr 1 2009, 04:11 PM) Have you tried reinstalling (or repairing) DAQmx? Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE (zythum @ Apr 1 2009, 07:24 AM) No you do call RegisterWindowMessage() but then you do not call SendMessage() but you have to receive that message from the other application and that requires at least intercepting the internal LabVIEW message queue (example I pointed out earlier) but since it is a system message maybe even installing a real Winddows message hook. While the Windows Message Queue example I mentioned earlier would help you with the first, you will have to REALLY write a C code DLL to do the second. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE (SandeepC @ Apr 1 2009, 04:24 AM) Lot of work and I'm sure you can never reach the short latency in this way that the native USB port would provide, at least if you have no bad hubs or such in between. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE (SandeepC @ Mar 31 2009, 11:40 AM) Are you seriously considering to write an USB protocol stack in LabVIEW using the RS-422 IO lines of the 1426 card?????? I would really reconsider that again. USB is NOT RS-422 although with an RS-485 port (bidirectional) you probably could simulate it electrically. But that still leaves you with the USB protocol stack to be implemented. The TTL pins definitly wouldn't be electrically compatible to simulate even the electric aspects of USB. Why are you even considering to connect that device to this framegrabber. Wouldn't be a direct USB port on the computer where this board is plugged in be a lot easier? Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE (zythum @ Mar 31 2009, 03:26 PM) Yes a good start but the most easy thing of all. That example is about posting a message to another application. That is simple, even trivial. You need to wait for a message from the other applciation, that is a lot more involved. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE (karthik @ Aug 17 2007, 09:06 AM) One thing I have noticed is that at some point Agilent, then still HP was marketing Vee rather agressively trying to get every LabVIEW account they could. This has changed a lot in the last 8 years. Now they try to market it together with their devices to Agilent shops (customers heavily using Agilent devices) mostly and seem to have abandoned most other venues to sell it. As such it would seem to me to have a rather limited user base. It certainly is second to none if you only have to deal with Agilent devices and like the way you have to think and program in Vee, but for most anything else it has no advantages to LabVIEW and IMO, a lot of disadvantages, but it's been a long time since I played with an evalution version of it. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE (No.1 @ Mar 30 2009, 08:56 PM) Neither am I. I use my own ODBC based VI library and ODBC does not know an explicit cancel method but you simply close the statement handle (a specific query or other SQL statment execution) with an option to force it. What that does on the server side is however quite a different story since it is ODBC driver specific. It could communicate the closing of the statement to the server and cause it to abort any ongoing activity on that statement but it could also just close the handle on the client side and let the server continue with whatever it is doing, eventually discarding any response from the server it gets for this particular statement. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE (Mark Yedinak @ Mar 30 2009, 04:35 PM) This would seem mostly a useless restriction to me unless for security reasons, when you want to restrict the firewall passthrough both on the outgoing and incoming side. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE (No.1 @ Mar 29 2009, 10:41 PM) By not using high level VIs but taking apart your query into at least an Execute query and the actual data retrieval. If you close the statement or result set reference before you actually retrieve the data, the query should be dropped and any already generated data with it. You probably need to find a way to see if the query already produced some data before starting the retrieval as it might not be possible to cancel an already started data retrieval. You can try it out however if closing the result set reference in another part of the code does maybe abort the data retrieval too. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE (hma @ Jun 8 2007, 08:02 AM) I understand now what you want, but don't feel this type of Tab Control is ergonomic in any way. I usually feel annoyed whenever I see a tab control that goes over more than one line of tabs. The variant with scrollarrows to the right to scroll through more tabs than what is possible to put on the screen is only slightly better IMO. Personally I prefer for cases like this the array index display approach with a Pull Down menu control or a List Box control being the element selector and the rest of the page presenting the currently selected array element. And that is not just because it is easier to do in LabVIEW than the multi row tab control . Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE (Clio75 @ Mar 27 2009, 04:37 PM) Scan from String will not have this problem. And if you know you could have numbers with a specific decimal point instead of the current system decimal point (instrument responses for instance) you just prepend the %.; to the format string. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE (xavier30 @ Mar 27 2009, 11:17 AM) So you are supposedly using the Call Library Node to call those external Libraries. Ever checked (really really throughfully) that you pass all the right data types to the Shared lib, and most importantly never pass in an array or string buffer to the lib to be filled in by this library that could be to small? The fact that it works in the IDE or on Windows means really nothing in the case of such problems. The buffer you pass into the library might often border non vital data that gets corrupted too, but won't cause a fatal crash or it might be even so that it is a buffer for a filepath that is shorter in those other situations never overwriting illegal memory except in the runtime installation. Lots of things to consider here, but using the Call Library Node and testing your application to not crash on one specific installation/built is really not enough. You really ought to validate every single Call Library Node to have all the data types right and most importatnly either have no output data buffer (array or string filled in by the library) or that those buffers are under all possible circumstances preallocated large enough in the LabVIEW diagram. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE (ned @ Mar 28 2009, 02:01 PM) Ben is right. No need to request the TCP Open to open a specific local port at all. Just leave the local port input empty, which tells LabVIEW to let the OS select whatever port it can. For a client (No TCP Listen used) only the remote port is normally important, except with some strange protocols sometimes. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE (zythum @ Mar 27 2009, 11:33 AM) While File Mappings aren't that difficult, the Windows API to deal with that is a bit more complex then just accessing a single function. So this part while in theory possible to be dealt with directly from the diagram using the Call Library Node is actually better handled in an external C DLL, that deals with these problems directly and offers LabVIEW a clean and easy to access interface. The real killer however is the Windows message handling that is required. To implement that in LabVIEW only is not possible, since there is no way for you as LabVIEW programmer to intercept specific Windows messages. There is a Windows_Message_Queue example on the NI site that offers a C++ DLL to do that, but it is not exactly for what you need and you will have to modify it to work for your purposes. So I would simply create a complete new DLL and put everything in there. If I would have to do that I would estimate about 1 day of work for this to get a reliably working DLL and two or three LabVIEW VIs to access this. Now I do have a lot of experience with external C code integration in LabVIEW, so if you are gonna do that expect to have quite a bit longer for this and be willing to learn C to a level that goes well beyond beginners level. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE (EHM @ Mar 26 2009, 10:37 PM) Not sure about your proxy but I did not add the Host: xxxxxxxxxxxx in the past to my proxy requests and that worked. The Host can be added according to the RFC for forward compatibility but I don't think it is required. The absolute URI however seems to be at least for older HTTP versions a requirement. I did however use HTTP/1.0 as version indication so maybe that is why. And last but not least: are you sure there is an index.html document on the server. It could be index.htm or something entirely different so as a start I would try just the server address http://www.example.com/ without any document path. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE (jlokanis @ Mar 24 2009, 02:16 PM) Anything special about your setup? Project or project VIs on a network drive? LabVIEW starting up from a network drive? It seems that there must be something like this. Something similar though not to LabVIEW only I see on my machine if I do not have a connection to my VPN server. Presumably because I have a path somewhere in the registry that points to a location on a shared drive only available when logged in through VPN. But Widnows seems to check that path anyhow everytime I click on a file in Explorer . It's annoying but not annoying enough to really dig through the registry to find the offending entry. Rolf Kalbermatter

QUOTE (Yair @ Mar 24 2009, 01:55 PM) I hadn't noticed at first but if you go to his blog he has linked to, you can find some info about things he did. Seems he likes to tinker with computers and some of what is written there certainly is on the border of legality. Might be using dads LabVIEW copy or whatever and taking his last few inquiries together he might be just looking for things to crack, probably more to boost about than anything else. Rolf Kalbermatter