Connector pane patterns for class accessor VIs

[SteveChandler]

Using the property definition folder lets you bundle everything with a property node as has already been pointed out. Creating an accessor to bundle everything up requires you to use bundle by name and ends up looking very similar but somewhat more messy. In effect you can already do what you are asking.

[Mr.Mike]

Currently there are no plans for that.  If you have a property that takes a class in or an error in (or out) then it would be hard to tell which is the class that's being operated on and which is the value.  We could require 4x2x2x4 with certain values in certain terminals in that case, but I think that would be a bit sloppy.  I also don't think it's a high priority unless the idea exchange idea gets a very large number of votes.

- Mike

[Ben]

I stumbled across this note and figured I would post it here since it somewhat related.

"

 They are in C:\Program Files\National Instruments\LabVIEW 8.6\resource\Framework\Providers \LVClassLibrary\NewAccessors\BaseAccessorScripter
The files are ReadTemplate.vit and WriteTemplate.vit.

"

Ben

[richjoh]

OK, Ben, cool. Customize the template connector pane (set/get) to get away from 4x2x2x4. Is this the idea?

The editable VI templates are called readTemplate.vit and writeTemplate.vit. Other are password protected for obvious reasons.

[Mr.Mike]

---

@richjoh wrote:

OK, Ben, cool. Customize the template connector pane (set/get) to get away from 4x2x2x4. Is this the idea?

The editable VI templates are called readTemplate.vit and writeTemplate.vit. Other are password protected for obvious reasons.

---

That's the idea and that's generally the intention of the VI templates, but LabVIEW Class Properties require a 4x2x2x4 connector pane pattern.  If you try to use LabVIEW Class Properties with a different connector pane pattern you'll get an error on the VI.

[Ben]

---

@Mr. Mike wrote:

---

@richjoh wrote:

OK, Ben, cool. Customize the template connector pane (set/get) to get away from 4x2x2x4. Is this the idea?

The editable VI templates are called readTemplate.vit and writeTemplate.vit. Other are password protected for obvious reasons.

---

That's the idea and that's generally the intention of the VI templates, but LabVIEW Class Properties require a 4x2x2x4 connector pane pattern.  If you try to use LabVIEW Class Properties with a different connector pane pattern you'll get an error on the VI.

---

So now I get the issue and have to say that absolutely sucks. It means that I have to throw away thousands of VIs to make the conversion.

I should have waited until 2014 to start LVOOPing.

Ben

[SteveChandler]

Ben, could you fix the situation with scripting?

[Ben]

Yes but... what is the issue?

I work in a shop that developed LV standards before LV standrads were invented. THe Standard connector pain is the "worst case minus one".

SO I would have to rewrite what LV should do to work with my stuff. If I did and there was a bug, my code would be suspect.

Scripting is something I stopped playing with long before it became public. I put a lot of effort into scripting that would automatically build my action engines from a spreadsheet defining the data sets (names and tdata types). I brought it to work to demo for my boss and the demo crashed with an insane error.

So I hade to throw away all of that code and go back to doing it by hand.

As far as I am concerned, I'll stick with what I have that works. I don't need the fancy nodes if they require I use a non-standrd icon connector. Hell it is already hard enough to get people to start LVOOPing without having to first make the arguement that we no lonnger have a choice of icon connectors, and all of the internal stuff has to be redone it don't want zig-zag wires.

But thanks for trying to help!

Ben

[Mr.Mike]

---

@Ben wrote:

So now I get the issue and have to say that absolutely sucks. It means that I have to throw away thousands of VIs to make the conversion.

I should have waited until 2014 to start LVOOPing.

Ben

---

You can still do plenty of things with LabVIEW Object Oriented Programming.  As much as I think my feature is awesome, it's really just syntactic sugar.  You can still drop a string of VIs with getters and setters.  You just won't be able to wire a class to property nodes.

Also, as Steve Chandler pointed out, scripting will probably help you if you want to convert some of your code.  Additionally, you can just create wrapper accessor VIs.  The wrapper will have a 4x2x2x4 con pane and the wrapped will have whatever con pane you prefer to use.

[Ben]

---

@Mr. Mike wrote:

---

@Ben wrote:

So now I get the issue and have to say that absolutely sucks. It means that I have to throw away thousands of VIs to make the conversion.

I should have waited until 2014 to start LVOOPing.

Ben

---

You can still do plenty of things with LabVIEW Object Oriented Programming.  As much as I think my feature is awesome, it's really just syntactic sugar.  You can still drop a string of VIs with getters and setters.  You just won't be able to wire a class to property nodes.

Also, as Steve Chandler pointed out, scripting will probably help you if you want to convert some of your code.  Additionally, you can just create wrapper accessor VIs.  The wrapper will have a 4x2x2x4 con pane and the wrapped will have whatever con pane you prefer to use.

---

I am not trying to diss your stuff Mike. In fact your syntactical sugar was on eof the things about 2010 that looked rally nice and I was thinking it may help maks the LVOOP stuff from my fellow developers enough that I could get some converts to make the jump.

The best I can say for now is "I can be very patient." I'll stick with the old way and give y'all the chance to fix the limitation.

Ben