Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


smenjoulet last won the day on June 9 2010

smenjoulet had the most liked content!

Community Reputation


About smenjoulet

  • Rank
    Very Active
  • Birthday December 25

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Dallas, TX

LabVIEW Information

  • Version
    LabVIEW 2016
  • Since

Recent Profile Visitors

1,812 profile views
  1. My opinion: VIs should be called VIs when not in the context of an application or hierarchy. I think that referring to VIs in general as subVIs is incorrect and would argue for re-education of the confused. Maybe it's nitpicky, but it bothers me when someone asks me if I have a subVI to do such and such. If I catch myself (because I admit it's easy to let it slide), I'll respond "No, but I've got a VI that does that and you can use it as a subVI." To me subVI still makes the most sense in that context. The only alternative that comes to mind is "called VI", but I suppose that could cau
  2. Not fair! not fair! It isn't fair, my precious, is it, to not tell us what it's got in it's nassty little pocketsess? Wicked, tricksy, false!
  3. Texas Instruments is looking for a dynamic individual to fulfill the role of Senior Lab Automation Lead in our Santa Clara, CA office. The candidate should have a strong background in using GPIB as we deal with a lot of stand alone benchtop instruments. PXI and DAQ will also be an important part of your skill set. You should at a minimum be at a strong CLD to CLA level. If interested, you can send your info to Marvin and Scott at ti_automation_lead_opening@list.ti.com Required Experience 5-10 years of LabVIEW development (architect-level skill set preferred) 3-5 years of Teststand
  4. Jon - My interpretatin of that statement was that this applied to the updated 8.6 implementation, and actually any implememntation that "checks out " the class and passes the class wire between class methods. This would be a problem in the 8.2 version as well. It also had checkout/checkin components, though the actual usage example didn't use them and was "wireless". Indeed. But I like the discussion and will need to catch up on the thread before putting in my $.02. -Scott
  5. Yea, that's what I had hoped, but I couldn't find anything here or on the NI forums that specifically discusses the 8.2 implementation. Maybe I'm not searching right, but all I get is that the original 8.2 example is "flawed" or a "bad idea", but no discussion of why. Right! That's why I think the same implementation in 8.6 but substituting an SEQ for the DVR would be better than the shipping example, but I guess no one really cares about it any more. It's more of a thought experiment and wondering "Why?" at this point. There are more interesting discussions of OOP going on than what t
  6. I guess Yair and I could have been a bit more explicit when stating DVR's and SEQ's function identically. Of course there are differences, but we were referring specifically to the locking capability, not type handling. From the locking perspective, they function very much the same. Though as Yair points out, the scope of the lock is clearer with DVRs becasue of the IPE structure. Try saving some basic DVR code to 8.6. What do you get? An implementation based on SEQ.
  7. Yes, I agree. That is what prompted the latter part of my post. Why wouldn't this be the example of a Singleton that ships with LabVIEW (SEQ for 8.6; DVR for 2009+). Currently the example is a class wrapped in a library that uses a checkout/checkin mechanism to provide the locking. The checkout/in is still based on an SEQ, even in 2010. AQ had stated that he had wanted to see how DVR's were accepted before proposing his DVR method become the shipping example for 2009. OK, I'll give benefit of the doubt on that one. But why wasn't the example updated for 2010. There are diferences bet
  8. There were two ini keys, one for scripting and one for additional private features. True the scripting key hasn't worked for some time as NI switched to requiring activation for scripting and then making it publically available as option that can be an enabled. The other key still works for some of the additional private items. However the scripting workbench that Francois points to may be a better option for you depending on your needs.
  9. Refer to the bottom of this post to see how to enable the private properties/methods.
  10. Darn, you're quick! Congratulations on 1000 popsts! -Scott
  11. It's not clear in the images, but I mentioned in the post that this is based on an SEQ (single element queue). The process of dequeueing the class will cause any other parallel operation to wait at it's dequeue until the class is enqueued again. This proivides the locking and serialization mechanism. The IPE handles this imiplicilty for DVR, while the class developer has to be cognizant to do the proper dequeue/enqueue operations for the SEQ implementation.
  12. So I was re-examining some design pattern postings and ran across this statement again (and other similar ones) about the Singleton example (based on SEQ and FGV) from LabVIEW 8.2: An example of this implementation shipped with LV8.2. That version turned out to be a bad idea.Haivng never looked at this example originally, I loaded up 8.2 to see what the fuss was about. I also searched for an explanantion or discussion of what exactly was bad or what the issues were, but couldn't find anything. So without straining my brain too hard this late at night, what exactly were the issues that peopl
  13. You say you are single-stepping, but are you stepping into the various subVI's or just stepping over the subVIs. It sounds like it may be stuck in a dll call. Are you communicationg with any hardware? DAQ, GPIB, that sort of thing? Normally, during execution highlighting, the currently executing subVI(s) should have a green arrow overlayed on top of the icon. Can you seen that anywhere when the execution appears stuck? Can you post at least a screen capture of the top level diagram so we can see what is being used? -Scott
  14. You're using Express Vi's in your application. This is the naming you'll see for express VI's when you list them out. -Scott
  15. You were probably clicking the increment/decrement (up/down) arrows for the ring control. Just try clicking on the picture itself. You will get a thumbnail of each picture and you can select the one you want. If you're expecting it to look like the picture you posted, i think you'll be disappointed. If you want that, you'll have to do a bit more work with either a picture control (not picture ring) or an XControl. If you're on Windows, you might also be able to find an ActiveX or .Net control that would work. -Scott
  • Create New...

Important Information

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