LabView 2010 Application Builder for EXE Always Included files are not Included

[Dennis_Knutson]

You have the strangest NDA I have ever heard of.

The build specification is there. Try again. If you don't organize the files into your project and first specify the location for the folders that the files reside in, then this is all a waste of time.

[dbaechtel]

---

@Ravens Fan wrote:

I just knew this thread was going to go down this route when I first posted into it.

I really don't believe your NDA is as restrictive as you think it is.  If it really was, I don't think you should be posting into the forums and asking any questions at all during this time period that you are bound by it.

---

You are in no position to judge either of the items that you have made statements about. And your statements are irrelevant to the technical discussion at hand.

[RavensFan]

---

@dbaechtel wrote:

---

@Ravens Fan wrote:

I just knew this thread was going to go down this route when I first posted into it.

I really don't believe your NDA is as restrictive as you think it is.  If it really was, I don't think you should be posting into the forums and asking any questions at all during this time period that you are bound by it.

---

You are in no position to judge either of the items that you have made statements about. And your statements are irrelevant to the technical discussion at hand.

---

Maybe not.  But I'm sure the other participants in this  thread understand by comment and can appreciate it.

[dbaechtel]

You really don't expect me to pluck source files from 3rd party toolkits that are installed within LabView and copy them into special project folder just so I can do a Build, do you?

Is there any way around doing that?

[dbaechtel]

I am doing something very important to the viability of an organization that I am doing it for. They are very protective of the work that I am doing that belongs to them. Thus the restrictive NDA terms.

I am pouring my heart and soul and health and every possible waking hour into this project. And I don't appreciate being constantly beat up by people that don't know any better or anything about it.

These are NI's support, discussion and technical forums. This is where I need to go to get support. This is not supposed to be a social forum where some people seemingly get enjoyment out of defamation of other people.

I would appreciate it if we all would keep these discussions on a purely technical level. I will try and do my best otherwise.

[Dennis_Knutson]

Typically, an NI toolkit would have to be installed the same way you installed it and that would require building an installer. That is how it would get legally licensed. For example, I would need to do that to distribute the database toolkit. It would then be activated with a serial number.

[dbaechtel]

I very much appreciate your helpful comments.

I will build an installer for the application eventually. In fact I have already built one. It includes all kinds of DAQmx and hardware installation along with it to be installed on bare machines. It will include all of the features that you mention and then some.

But during the development process, I need to build a lighter weight EXE form of the application so I can test to make sure that all of my features work as well as an EXE as they do in the LV development environment. I have found several features in LV that don't and I have had to find workarounds for them. I build several EXE versions of the application every day just to check features and performance.

So I would appreciate some instructions on how to build an EXE application that will serve my needs, if it is possible. If it is not possible, then I respectfully suggest that there exists a weakness in the EXE Build process if it can not do so.

For now I will assume the the EXE Build Process will not copy .vi and .ctl files unmodified unless they exist in a separate folder so that the Build process can copy the files and the folder together. If I am mistaken, then I would appreciate your correction.

If that is true, I choose not to group my files that way just to satisfy the Build process. It would entail too much life cycle cost. I would rather use the full installer process, even though it will cost me much more time to do so.

[smercurio_fc]

---

dbaechtel wrote: 

Any more of this abuse and I will report you to the moderator.

---

Go ahead.

---

These are NI's support, discussion and technical forums. This is where I need to go to get support. This is not supposed to be a social forum where some people seemingly get enjoyment out of defamation of other people.

---

Ah yes, the cry of defamation. And I find trying to answer your questions oh so enjoyable...

---

I would appreciate it if we all would keep these discussions on a purely technical level. I will try and do my best otherwise.

---

You've said this before. Many times. Yet EVERY time we've told you the technical reasons for something, or the way to do something you've complained that it's not right or it's inadequate or something else because you didn't like the answer. Can't help you with that.

P.S. I've unsubscribed from this thread. I've got better things to do with my time. I'm not sure why I even bothered to try to answer the question.

[dbaechtel]

National Instruments lists these forums as Discussion Forums. This is the place where LabView features should be discussed. Discussions are supposed to be a two way process where both parties try to derive some understanding from what is being said.

If I make statements about how the features or implementation of LabView do not fit a particular application well, then NI and others in the community should take great interest in that and try and see the situation from my point of view.

Those that try to drive the discussion into a monologue only, do the community a great disservice.

No one should be berated for what is said on a technical topic.

On the other hand, making fun of other people or berate them because of their ideas, should be strictly forbidden and admonished by the entire community. That's just not right.

[RVallieu]

Wow, ok after 3 pages of back and forth....I didn't see a solution accepted.

I had the same issue - when in previous versions you did not have to specify where to place your support VIs in the Always Include field.

I believe I had to go to the Source File Setting 

> Navigate to the files that are going to be in the Always Include

> Set the Destination to Support Directory (not the default Same as Caller)

> Then go back to the Source Files and add the files in question to the Always Include

Then do your build.