Diagram of Structure Disable and asynchronous Subvi Bug?

In this scheme, the Boolean value happens to the Boolean indicator 2 ASYNC has not completed running.

Without the Structure off the scheme, it does not wait for an ASYNCHRONOUS operation to complete.

I always thought that the design schema disable compile the case enabled only if the structure were not there, but this clearly isn't the case.

Is this a bug?

There is a technical term for it, it is called lazy (no pun intended, OK maybe a little bit).  A lazy design template do not load or initialize an object until it is actually needed.  LV R & D team that applies everywhere.

The essential is that the SSD is a node (flat sequence Structure is not BTW), and as a node, it begins execution when all its inputs are available and interrupts the execution when all its outputs are completed.  As a node, the SSD * must * follow this rule.

Now the question is: why the SSD has been implemented as a node?  I suggest because it was the easiest way, requiring fewer changes. Nothing profound here.  They simply chose the lazy implementation: create nothing new if you can help it, but rather the existing object that gives the best approximation of the behavior desired.

Of course now the ship sailed so now that we have the difficult battle "raise the existing code" to fight as well.

A similar complaint when Inline subVIs, an invisible 'node' encapsulates the Subvi so the code is in an intermediate state between truly inline and a normal Subvi.

I understand the current choice, but would not support it's behavior "wanted" by any stretch.  Sometimes LV R & D is trying to have his cake and eat it too, they will compromise on the implementation for convenience of coding and then try to convince you that the result is really desired, only you do not realize it.   That's when I get a little cranky, so far I have not heard all the arguments that this has been done for any other reason besides expediency.

Tags: NI Software

Similar Questions

Maybe you are looking for