Hi all, I am really impressed about the number and quality of answers / comments / recommendations my question has initiated. I still have to think about the different aspects of the suggestions, but I am learning a lot out of each one.
As I will be out of the office for the next week, I will not be able to commence on this job too soon, nor to follow the rest of the remaining discussion about parallel while loops in "live mode". Preliminary summary: There seem to be different solutions: 1. use parallel loops 2. use VI server (Run VI, Wait until done, Auto Dispose Ref), maybe together with ocurrence to control the loops 3. "Selective GUI Panel Control" by David Ritter. I still have to learn more about this. Many thanks to everybody and keep on going. Gerd Rech -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- Von: Michael Aivaliotis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Mai 2004 05:13 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 'Info LabVIEW (E-mail)'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: RE: More then one active Vi with open Front panel? Well I'm not arguing the idea of eliminating multiple loops. I definitly use the concept in every app I write. I'm stating that parallel processes shouldn't necessarily be tied to the main user interface VI by being contained on the diagram of that VI. Yes, it is comforting to "see" your code in the main menu but it is easier for me to debug parallel code when it is not linked to a caller. Sometimes I need to abort a a parallel process and restart it. The caller remains unnafected. I usually launch several dynamic VI's for hardware communication and it is more convenient to keep my main app running while I tweak things here and there. Also, certain concepts like cloning VI's cannot be achieved without dynamic calls (Gerd, you might want to consider this in your case, multiple views of the data). Let's not forget that this thread is trying to solve a problem of launching a VI so it is non-blocking. I really don't see the big deal with dynamic calls. I guess the phrase "VI Server" conjurs-up images of complex code to perform a simple task. I think the parallel loop ideas with occurences and such sound more involved to me (even though I've used them myself). Honestly, is this code scary?: <http://lavausergroup.org/labviewimages/dynamicrun.gif> :-) That's really all you need. Michael Aivaliotis > "Michael Aivaliotis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > My problem is I enjoy discussions on methodology and implementation > > techniques too much. In our local LabVIEW user group meetings we > > sometimes (actualy always) discuss (actually argue) > programming style. > > The issue lately is: single loop good, multiple loops bad. > > Are you kidding? Most complex programs I write never would > fullfill user expectations without multiple loops in the main > VI. You don't want to block alarm handling or built in TCP/IP > server handling for remote control because a user wants to > check the configuration settings. Of course making sure the > local user and the remote application are properly locking > out each other is another thing, but quite some remote > commands do not need local lockout to be performed at all.
