Nom Nom Nom... Eating Crow

[Daklu]

Well, I finally got my CLA exam results and it turns out I didn't pass. Yeah, I'm more than a little surprised and disappointed, but for what it's worth here are some of my lessons learned from the process. Maybe they'll be useful to others preparing to sit for the exam. Or maybe I'm just venting...

1. Don't use object-oriented design patterns. Before the exam our local sales rep hosted a call with an exam grader, and he indicated using LVOOP (or GOOP) was acceptable. I can only assume that means they don't reject it out of hand. I used facades, mediators, and an object-based state machine, all of which are common in other languages, yet apparently are unrecognizable to the graders and/or grading rubric.

2. Be careful how you break the app into components. For example, in the sample exam there are a couple security requirements listed. I was dinged hard on several items for what would be equivalent to "Security module not designed." Notice there is no requirement listed for a "security module," there are only security requirements. That my design satisfied the listed requirements is irrelevant--no security module, no points. This one really rubs me the wrong way. One of the primary things an architect does is figure out how to break the requirements into functional components. Forget about balancing the tradeoffs between different options; the only right way is NI's way.

3. Assume your design will be thrown "over the wall" to developers who have been outsourced. I'll set aside the fact that the "ivory tower architect" scenario is a failed development process and just accept that I don't get to explain any details to the developers. That is sort of implied in the exam requirements. However, even though in the exam's hypothetical architecture scenario I'm handing the design off to our developers, apparently it's a mistake to assume they might have become familiar with some of the patterns we've been using in our time together. In fact, it appears the requirement is that design can be handed to any random developer and he'll know what to do with it. (I guess NI expects architects to micromanage the implementation details.)

Sour grapes? Yeah, probably a bit. Disillusioned with the certification process? Oh yeah. Disappointed that I won't be able to attend the architectural summit next year? Definitely. That's been my entire motivation for pursuing certification. Oh well, life goes on...

[Edit - After reflecting on the issue for a couple days I posted some thoughts on this post here.]

[Val Brown]

....

Sour grapes? Yeah, probably a bit. Disillusioned with the certification process? Oh yeah. Disappointed that I won't be able to attend the architectural summit next year? Definitely. That's been my entire motivation for pursuing certification. Oh well, life goes on...

I am sorry that you didn't pass. I do agree that, for me, the primary (if not ONLY) motivation for pursuing CLA would be to attend the conference. But yes life goes on and I'm sure that, if you want to, you will pass at a later point. For me, I doubt that I will pursue that. At this point I'd far rather put my "extra" time into golf but, then again, I am in a rather unique situation. And I am sure that for most LV users -- esp developer/consultants -- the CLA is definitely worthwhile.

[crelf]

My mum used to giver me the following advice before school exams:* Answer the question that you're being asked, not the question the you think you're being asked (this was a particular failing of mine).* Give the examiner the answer they want, whether it's right or wrong.Looks like you bombed out on the second one :)Sorry to hear that you didn't make it mate. I know that you're an advanced architect (more advanced than several CLAs that I know), and I think you have 2 options: either challenge it, or take it again and do it their way. I don't know whick of those options will be easier for you.

[jdunham]

Ooof. Sorry you didn't pass. If it makes you feel better, I had my CLA (I was one of the original ones, I think), and then I couldn't manage to pass the recertification exam, after stubbornly refusing to take any of the training courses. Common sense will only get you so far, and apparently it's not far enough to be a CLA!

[ShaunR]

Not a consolation I know, but you're not the first. And definitely won't be the last. Of all the NI exams. The CLA is the one where exam technique weighs heavily in the results.

You can nail the requirements and documentation by spending 1/2 an hour writing a well rehearsed scripting VI and cutting and pasting the requirements into a text file As Crelf said. "Give the examiner what they want" (or in this case, the Requirements Gateway).

[Fab]

Daklu,

I am sorry you didn't pass, but I agree that you should call NI, if not to challenge the results, at least to provide feedback on the test. You are one of the most experienced LV people and NI is missing a lot by not having you as a CLA.

It is very discouraging when someone with your background does not pass the test and it explains why for some customers my certification is not enough. They want to see my code. I guess they have been burned many times by hiring people who have the certification but do not have the knowledge/experience to back it up.

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

Stepping in to the Wayback Machine...

Years ago, on the Drak-side forum, before LAVA was molten...

Jim Kring and all of the LAVAites used to answer questions on the Dark-side. Back then there was the potetial of each of us starting new threads not for Q & A but to discuss. Most people never used that function but there was on instance where we were anticipating the new certification "CLA". In that thread we were discussing what WE thought an architect should know. Jim posted a wonderful outline that covered LV and the environment that I printed out and posted to my cubicle wall to serve as a study outline. it was not long before that thread was deleted. I read it as "we don't want YOU deciding what makes a CLA, thank you and please ignore the man behind the curtain."

Whta tthe CLA certification became was what NI thought an architect should know. How did they answer that question? Well they looked at what they taught in the classes and based the testing on those courses.

If you think NI teaches you everything you need to know about LV that resoning can make sense. I don't think they do so I am of a different opinion.

So I want to say that Daklu is talking at his level (well above mine) and that he may indeed be the "type" of a CLOOPA and I want to ask for others opinions related to this idea.

Craig Larman in his book "Applying UML and Patterns" stated that a OOP architect has a understanding of 50 or more patterns and can apply them as warrented (paraphrased of course).

Q:

What are the qualifications that distinguish a Certified LabVIEW OOP Architect?

Ben

PS: NI can't pull this thread.

[Mark Yedinak]

Wow, that really sucks. I know from following various discussion where you participated that I think you are definitely qualified to be a CLA. I do have to second Chris's comments though about answering the questions with the answers NI is looking for. Obviously the CLA exam is one where multiple correct answers can be given but sadly you found out the hard way that NI is more interested in specific answers.

[John Lokanis]

Bummer dude. I guess it comes down to knowing what they want you to say and not what is the correct answer. I know on my CLD and CLA tests I used the most simplistic 'old school' way to solve the problem instead of how I would build it in 'real life'. NI's training and certification testing is at least 10 years behind the rest of us who build real LV solutions everyday.

So, CLD/CLA top tip: Be smart, do not be clever.

Oh, and demand a do-over. I think Steve will be happy to help you out there if you ask.

-John

[Daklu]

Thank you all for the encouragement. I really appreciate it.

I had actually responded to the email requesting an appeal (with more details about what I thought was wrong) before posting here. My request was forwarded to the grader, who sent me an email today. We're trying to set up a phone call to talk about it on Wednesday, but at the very least he'll review my solution based on my comments and send me an email. I have no idea if it will change the results, but at least I'll get a chance to explain the architecture I used.

The CLA is the one where exam technique weighs heavily in the results.

Yeah, and it's arguably the one where the specific answer (in this case the code) matters the least.

You are one of the most experienced LV people and NI is missing a lot by not having you as a CLA.

Thank you, but in fairness I should point out that I'm really not one of the more experienced LV devs. I'm a relative babe in LV-land--I only started using it 5 years ago. There are LOTS of people here who have far more experience than me and whom I still learn from every day.

I know on my CLD and CLA tests I used the most simplistic 'old school' way to solve the problem instead of how I would build it in 'real life'... So, CLD/CLA top tip: Be smart, do not be clever.

I agree the exam is not the time to try clever new stuff--I didn't think I was being clever. I just used the same principles and ideas I use in most of my desktop apps. OOP is so ingrained in the way I think about problems trying to do things the 'old school' way is a sure path to failure.

NI's training and certification testing is at least 10 years behind the rest of us who build real LV solutions everyday.

I can't speak to the training as I've never taken any NI courses, but I agree there are many aspects of LV programming standards that seem to be stuck in 1987.

My mum used to giver me the following advice before school exams:* Answer the question that you're being asked, not the question the you think you're being asked (this was a particular failing of mine).*

You mum is very wise. I often have the same problem you had. In this case I guess I thought they wanted what they asked for. AQ's success with an OO solution to the CLD a while back led me to believe they would be more open to non-procedural solutions.

---

I haven't decided if I'll retake the exam if the appeal isn't successful. I know the architecture I used is valid and I certainly won't change the way I program just to pass the exam. I guess I'll consider resitting if I feel like I get enough specific information on what was missing so I feel like I can submit a correct solution using the same basic patterns.

[Daklu]

In that thread we were discussing what WE thought an architect should know. Jim posted a wonderful outline that covered LV and the environment that I printed out and posted to my cubicle wall to serve as a study outline.

Do you still have it? It would be very interesting to read.

Whta tthe CLA certification became was what NI thought an architect should know. How did they answer that question? Well they looked at what they taught in the classes and based the testing on those courses.

Good insight... I honestly think the CLA is mis-named. I don't know what it should be called, but there is so much stuff architects should know that isn't covered by the exam that I have a hard time believing a CLA is equivalent to an architect in other languages. The CLA seems to focus on leading a small group of developers implementing a feature rather than designing a suitable architecture for a large application. Maybe "Lead Developer," or "Feature Lead," or even "Small App Architect," or something like that? I'm also not sure there is a realistic way to test and certify what I think of as an architect.

Craig Larman in his book "Applying UML and Patterns" stated that a OOP architect has a understanding of 50 or more patterns and can apply them as warrented (paraphrased of course).

Yeah, I read that. I'm not there yet. While I think I am qualified for the CLA title, even if all my LV knowledge were transferred to another language I wouldn't consider myself an architect in that language.

What are the qualifications that distinguish a Certified LabVIEW OOP Architect?

I don't think differentiating between a CLOOPA and a CLA is a good idea. The fact of the matter is LV supports OOP now. More and more people are exploring it and using it to develop applications. An architect should have the breadth of knowledge to understand how to develop procedurally or develop using OOP, and understand the tradeoffs of using one versus the other.

[Roy F]

Daklu,

I do not know you, but I know some of those who are singing your praises, so I am suitably impressed with your abilities. I hope all works out well in the end, and am optimistic that it will, but I wanted to compliment you on your positive and helpful attitude in the face of this adversity. Your reaction to a bad situation was to start a discussion that is very helpful to others who will take the CLA and, I hope, also to us at National Instruments. I work with Customer Education periodically regarding certification and have faith that they will review your case and respond appropriately. Perhaps the result was appropriate, perhaps it was appropriate but we should add some additional guidance or requirements to the exam instructions, or perhaps some changes need to be implemented regarding grading. I do not know what will happen or what changes might come of this, but I am optimistic and very appreciative of your time and effort here.

Congratulations on having such a fine reputation amongst your peers; that reflects many many successes in various respects (communication, attitude, technical) over a long period of time - very impressive.

Roy Faltesek

Senior Group Manager

LabVIEW R&D

[Cat]

You was robbed!

Seriously, you're one of those rare people who actually *thinks* about the whole process of what we do. If that isn't part of what being an architect is all about, it should be.

The CLA seems to focus on leading a small group of developers implementing a feature rather than designing a suitable architecture for a large application. Maybe "Lead Developer," or "Feature Lead," or even "Small App Architect," or something like that?

And this is one of the reasons I will probably never take the CLA exam. I am the architect/designer/implimenter of 90% of the code I'm involved with. I'd have a hard time drawing the line between those jobs.

[zack]

Hello All,

I appreciate the feedback and will attempt to put it to good use, beginning right now. I can provide some history and some insight into how came to where we are and where we are going as well as information on the appeals process.

History

The CLA exam was developed after we did a thorough task analysis – a process which involved interviewing several key members of the community to determine the certification levels, tasks, knowledge and skills needed to perform at the CLA level. Community members expressed fundamental differences / disagreements as to what an architect should be or do. Some said an architect is just a LabVIEW project manager (one extreme) and others said an architect is an advanced developer using advanced designs and messaging. We decided to define a LabVIEW Architect as a technical function. Our general expectations of what make up a CLA can be determined by reviewing the preparation guide for the CLA exam and the recommended courses for CLAs.

The CLA exam has evolved from “essay only” to “part essay/part development” to “a complete architecture development” test. This evolution has occurred from us learning and growing and listening (so a hopeful indication for those wanting more change). There are several factors governing the design of the exam other than technical – localization, delivery logistics, consistent and defensible grading to name a few. It is a difficult challenge to come up with a universally acceptable exam, but one we believe we have been successful in meeting.

Graders/Grading

The training & certification team is technically competent and well versed in advanced topics and design patterns. Development, technical and project help is regularly sought from members of R&D, Systems Engineering and experienced Application Engineers. We go to great lengths to ensure those doing the grading are well qualified and consistent.

Future

We will continue to monitor and review our exam on a regular basis and taken corrective action when and where merited, whether it be with the exam content itself, the preparation material, the courses that prepare users for the CLA, whatever. Do not hesitate to provide feedback via whatever channel is most convenient for you, whether that be via emailing certification@ni.com, discussion forum post or other means.

Failure Situation

We obviously cannot and will not discuss specifics concerning Dave’s results, but I can say that we are talking to Dave, will answer any questions he has and will listen to his feedback.

We understand that failure is a frustrating experience – especially for a person with a good amount of experience and obvious esteem by his peers. There are numerous reasons why someone with good credentials can fail. They might get distracted and spend too much time on particular area; they might simply overlook one or more key deliverables. The deliverables are communicated in the exam preparation, demonstrated in the provided sample(s) and further emphasized in an exam preparation session (organized by user group/ field sales). Please let us know if there is a miscommunication in the preparation document – we will most gladly clarify / rectify the situation.

Finally, there is an appeal process for reviewing the exam evaluation – email certification@ni.com with your questions / comments and the reason for contesting the disposition. We are open to and need suggestions, feedback and even questions / solutions to the exams. I believe it would benefit the community if we allowed the appeal process to run its course before discussing a failed situation, but that is certainly up to each user to determine how and when they want to discuss a failed exam.

We realize we will not make everyone happy, but we sincerely strive to make the vast majority of the community have faith that tests are administered fairly and equitably and that the challenge is sufficiently hard to so as to guarantee a minimal level of expertise for someone to be regarded as a LabVIEW Architect.

Thanks

Zaki Chasmawala

Senior Engineer - Training & Certification

National Instruments

[ShaunR]

Hello All,

<snip>

Zaki Chasmawala

Senior Engineer - Training & Certification

National Instruments

Well said.

I personally think people get hung up on the terminology. I view the NI certifications as expanding levels of remit that closely follow a typical career path as you take greater responsibility over more of the project life-cycle. You start off with a general knowledge about LV (CLAD-demonstrate you know what it is) then progress to detailed implementation (CLD-demonstrate you can write software) and for the CLA it expands into requirements decomposition. (that's where I see the grey area between technical and project management begins) If you demonstrate competency in all these areas then you could also call yourself a software systems engineer, senior software engineer, chief developer, software technical authority et al. "Architect" has always seemed a bit, pretentious to me. At this level, titles don't really mean much (I notice you don't call yourself an architect ).

I'm pretty sure that next time round, Daklu will probably get one of the highest scores ever in the tests now that it is clear what is expected. For most of us, examinations are rare occurrences and we may perform better under pressure in a management meeting (that we deal with often) rather than in a timed test..

[zack]

Thanks ShaunR.

Since, I cannot certify myself, I cannot officially claim to be a CLA !!

Edited May 11, 2011 by zack

[Daklu]

This thread attracted much more attention than I expected and I need to make a couple more comments:

First, I was frustrated when I started this thread and the emotional part of my brain was preventing the rational part of my brain from getting a word in edgewise. Rereading it now there are things I said that were out of line and unjustified. Specifically, I questioned the technical abilities of the exam graders. I have never met any of the graders, much less looked at their code or talked to them about design issues. I have absolutely nothing upon which to make that claim. I have seen how NI constantly tries to improve their processes, from the Idea Exchange, to completely reworking the OOP courses, to revisiting exam format and content. I honestly believe NI is a company that seeks excellence in more than just the profit and loss column, and I'm sure the certification department is the same.

As Zack said, there are many possible reasons why I failed the exam. Most of them have to do with me and my solution. Others could be related to the grading standards. Given that at least two graders review every solution and typically come up with very similar scores, it is unreasonable for me to claim I failed because of their technical ability. My comment was unnecessary, uncalled for, and very unprofessional. I am truly sorry.

Second, I have been extremely impressed at how NI has handled the issue. (Much better than I did.) The email with my exam results included the phrase, "exam results are final." When I responded to the email asking about an appeal process I fully expected to have them say, "nope, exam results are final." Instead, they forwarded my request to the grader who has scheduled a conference call to discuss my solution and is including people who are well-versed in OOP principles. Regardless of the outcome of the appeal, NI has far exceeded my expectations in how they have handled the issue. (I shouldn't be surprised; NI always comes across to me as a very customer-focused company.)

I'm pretty sure that next time round, Daklu will probably get one of the highest scores ever in the tests...

You ever have that experience where everyone is telling you how great a movie is and you just *have* to go see it, and then when you do finally see it you think, "eh... I'm not sure what all the fuss was about." I'm the movie and I can assure you I'm no shoe in for a "Best Picture" Academy Award and far from making the "best movies of all time" list. My achilles heel for the exams is speed. Some people can bang out code very quickly--my strengths lie elsewhere.

I really appreciate the vote of confidence. Sure it would be a nice ego boost to get the highest score ever (I'd be more surprised at that than I was at failing) but if I do resit for the exam I'll be content with the minimum passing score.

[SteveChandler]

You ever have that experience where everyone is telling you how great a movie is and you just *have* to go see it, and then when you do finally see it you think, "eh... I'm not sure what all the fuss was about." I'm the movie and I can assure you I'm no shoe in for a "Best Picture" Academy Award and far from making the "best movies of all time" list. My achilles heel for the exams is speed. Some people can bang out code very quickly--my strengths lie elsewhere.

If that is true it is in the engineering process and technical writing. If you had the time write a book on the topics you write about here on Lava it could easily be the best selling LabVIEW book. You write some pretty long posts and I typically loose interest in long posts. But your writing style is very gripping, never dull, and always educational. I read every word - sometimes twice!

I have an ulterior motive in wanting you to write a book. I am a book junkie and already have all the good LabVIEW books. I need another one! LVOOP is in it's infancy but what better time? There is always the second edition when LVOOP matures!

Of course it would mean you would have less time for us here on Lava so maybe it is better you don't.

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

Hello All,

I appreciate the feedback and will attempt to put it to good use, beginning right now. I can provide some history and some insight into how came to where we are and where we are going as well as information on the appeals process.

...

We understand that failure is a frustrating experience – especially for a person with a good amount of experience and obvious esteem by his peers. There are numerous reasons why someone with good credentials can fail. They might get distracted and spend too much time on particular area; they might simply overlook one or more key deliverables.

...

Thanks

Zaki Chasmawala

Senior Engineer - Training & Certification

National Instruments

As a measurement guy and the dyslexic mascot I have to ask if the test results are true measurement of a candidates worthiness for CLA or are the number indicative of an artificial value that requires skill other than those required for a CLA.

I feel a timed test introduces many other factors that we can not compensate for.

Alternatives?

THe certification can be turned into a project. Candidate gets exam spec days ahead of time to allow them to review and think about. They should also be able to submit interogatory Q's to get the spec clarified (I was confused by more than one spce in the exams that were not clear to me). These interogatories would play a part in the evaluation since good questions are part of what a CLA really has to do. The CLA could generate diagrams to doc their design and submit same. If the CLA candidate chooses to use tool-kits or re-use code, they would submit copies of these tool-kits prior to the exam.

On the day of the exam the Candidate would dial-in for a web-Ex to present the design and answer questions.

So no time limits and no coding.

Just my two cents,

Ben

And re-certification changes as well!

Every five years the re-cert candidate will submit code examples of projects developed since cretification. The Exam would be a casual review to ensure the candidate still works with LV.

All of the interesting stuff learned by the Examiner should be documented and fed back to NI training so that the loop closes and teh entire LV world "is better for this..."*

Ben

* From The Unreachabel Star, Man of La Mancha

[Cat]

On the day of the exam the Candidate would dial-in for a web-Ex to present the design and answer questions.

So no time limits and no coding.

Kind of like defending your thesis/dissertation?? I like this idea.

The only downside is that it might require more time/work on NI's part. Oh, and take-home exams are always harder!

[Daklu]

Resolution:

I had a phone conference with the grader, an in-house expert, and our local sales rep. They spent time before the call reviewing my solution and the grade that was given. The outcome wasn't changed, but I do have a much better idea of why the points were deducted.

Using an object-oriented design was not an issue in grading. Neither was the (alleged) lack of technical ability on the part of the grader. I think my biggest issue (and Zaki can chime in if he wants to) is lack of sufficient documentation on implementation details. In some cases I figured the implementation details were self-evident. In other cases I thought the details were irrelevant from an architectural standpoint. And of course there were cases where I thought I put in more details than I actually had. Whatever the cause, my solution didn't include enough detail to satisfy NI's requirements.

I haven't decided if I will resit for the exam. Being unable to use the LapDog Messaging Library is a huge disadvantage for me, as it is a central component in my desktop architectures. I can't afford to spend a quarter of my time (or more) recreating it from scratch. I'll probably work through the sample exam some more and see how much I can get done in four hours.

If that is true it is in the engineering process and technical writing.

The ironic thing is I failed high school english--twice--because I couldn't get my writing assignments turned in. (Plus most of the grammar taught seems largely pointless.) Then in my first year of college I scored well enough they asked me to work in the writing help center for credit instead of taking the usual composition class. I failed that too for the same reason. Go figure...

Oh yes, writing and I have had a very rocky relationship. (Though I do have a slightly better relationship with her less glamorous sister, technical writing.)

If you had the time write a book...

Heh... there's not enough time in the history of the universe for me to write a book. It's not unusual for me to spend 8-12 hours on a longer post, which maybe translates into 3 pages on a book. (I have been considering archiving a collection of essays though...)

Of course it would mean you would have less time for us here on Lava so maybe it is better you don't.

And less time to do things like... you know... earn money.

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

Resolution:

...

And less time to do things like... you know... earn money.

I am glad that you resolved the issues.

I am still opposed to timed testing but I wil have to wait to push that agenda again.

Take care,

Ben

[Mark Yedinak]

Sorry it hear it did not work out better for you but at least you understand the grade now. I hope you decide to try again. One thing did jump out at me in your last post. You mentioned not being able to use another library to implement your solution but it is important to understand that the CLA exam is not looking for your complete code, but for the architecture to give someone else to implement. You need to design the framework for the application, not the application itself. Therefore you do not need to have the messaging library in order to complete the exam. You could easily have documented that the application requires the messaging library (perhaps even specifying a specific one) and describe how the messaging works. You are not required to actually implement it. This can save considerable time on the exam.

Good luck should you try again.

[Daklu]

THe certification can be turned into a project...

I really like this idea. (Maybe because I think I would do much better in that kind of test.) I don't know how practical it would be to do in real-life, but it is much more aligned with the skill set I think of when someone talks about an architect.

it is important to understand that the CLA exam is not looking for your complete code, but for the architecture to give someone else to implement.

You are of course correct--that is what the CLA is looking for. Much of my original post was misguided, but the one critique I do think is still applicable is the idea that an architecture should be designed and handed off to the dev team. A waterfall development process like that just doesn't work very well in my experience. (Unless you're building something that is a slight variation of something you've built 100 times before.) I don't think I would accept a job where a client wanted me to design a system and then go away while someone else implements it.

For me, architecture is a process, not a deliverable. The architecture evolves as the implementation progresses. I'll have a high-level idea of the necessary functional components, their main responsibilities, and how they'll communicate with each other, but I don't bother trying to formally define all the details of each component's api since they will change as new discoveries are made and issues come up during implementation. The architecture is done when the application is done.

You need to design the framework for the application, not the application itself.

A couple months ago I discovered a podcast called Software Engineering Radio. This weekend I was listening to Episode 87: Software Components. In it they said something that really struck a chord with me. To paraphrase, "Code is used to implement an architecture; it is not a good way to express an architecture."

This is a major obstacle for me. I could explain my design to someone in an hour or two using a whiteboard and a few example vis. In the pre-exam overview I was told not to include paper documentation with the solution. I asked specifically about using hand-drawn state diagrams to illustrate allowable transitions and required transition conditions. The answer was no. In practice I'll often create the state diagram using a uml tool and paste it onto the block diagram. For the exam I'm required to communicate the design to unknown developers so they can implement it, yet the exam conditions eliminate the best way I have of doing that. I'm not sure how to deal with this in a way that results in points being awarded. Maybe I'll create a doc.vi for each component and just put notes and arrows on the block diagram to recreate a state diagram?

Therefore you do not need to have the messaging library in order to complete the exam. You could easily have documented that the application requires the messaging library (perhaps even specifying a specific one) and describe how the messaging works. You are not required to actually implement it.

No, but I'd have to give enough details that an over-the-wall developer could implement it. That means describing the details of the MessageQueue class, the Message class, and the ErrorMessage class. Then I also have to describe how they work together, how to use them in code, and how to create and use custom messages. In the end there's a lot of telling but very little showing.

In principle I should be able to just create the public vis with the appropriate connector pane terminals and write a short note on the bd describing its behavior. In the case of the LapDog Message Library, describing it takes almost the same amount of time as fully implementing it. (Except for the Dequeue method; that would take a couple extra minutes to implement.) Almost all of the methods in the library are very thin wrappers or getters/setters. The value (imo) of the LDM stems from its structural organization and the collaboration of the classes, not any code magic inside it. I don't see any reasonable way to use it without recreating all the vis that are used. Unfortunately, creating the classes, methods, icons, descriptions, and inheritance hierarchy takes a pretty big chunk of time, and when I finally finish that task I haven't even covered a single requirement.

Giving a specific reference to the library might help... I dunno. I know we can't have pre-built code. I assumed that also means we can't specify pre-built code in our solution.

(IIRC, for this submission I actually created an LDM "lite," which was a few MessageQueue methods (Dequeue included, since that is a key part of the whole thing) built around a string-variant message type. I remember a couple times being frustrated with it and wishing I had the real library.)

------

Assuming anyone is bothering to continue reading this thread, don't take any of this to mean I'm opposed to certification. I doubt NI views training and certification as a primary revenue stream. I suspect it is driven by business needs. Customers want some indication of whether a consultant is worth his salt or blowing smoke, so NI created certification. I'm not particularly fond of the way the CLA is structured, but perhaps that is driven by customers too. If customers are asking for architects to do designs so they can be implemented by lower cost labor elsewhere, then maybe that's what NI should give them. Personally I think the customer will be much happier at the end of the day when the architect and developers are working together closely. If customers *are* asking NI for ivory tower architects I'd prefer they push back a little and educate customers about good software dev processes instead of enabling the customer to head down a path littered with failed projects.

[MikaelH]

1. Don't use object-oriented design patterns. Before the exam our local sales rep hosted a call with an exam grader, and he indicated using LVOOP (or GOOP) was acceptable. I can only assume that means they don't reject it out of hand. I used facades, mediators, and an object-based state machine, all of which are common in other languages

I've used OO in all my LV applications since 2000, but I agree, I won't use OO in the exam, since without a toolkit it would take me to a bit too long time.