LabVIEW
Online traing for OOP vs. face to face
If you've worked with Action Engines (AE) they use much of the same think as objects. You encapsulate functions and data to one structure. The 2 big differences being that if you have a multitude of functions the AE gets ALOT of input/outputs* and if you want to expand e.g. an instrument AE to support several type it'll be a mess of case structures inside for the different commands depending on which instrument.
Connector mess can easily be handled by gathering functions in a folder and/or lvlib, though you'll still get the Case inside each for handling different models.
OOP solves this by allowing different functions and thus optimized connection patterns for each function, and OOP handles which "case" of driver is to be used for e.g. Instrument write.
OOP is a way of structuring and handling code and hiding alot of messy administrative work, apart from that it's basically a folder/lvlib of functions.
* You could create a AE with a variant input and have it totally general, but you'll get no help on what to input for each function. ^^
/Y
@dacad wrote:
Yea, never heard of Action Engines.
Often also called Functional Global Variables. Here's where the term Action Engine was made: Action Engine. It is an excellent nugget to read through.
@crossrulz wrote:
Often also called Functional Global Variables. Here's where the term Action Engine was made: Action Engine. It is an excellent nugget to read through.
I make the distinction that if it's only get/set, then it's a FGV, if there's more commands it's an AE. 🙂
/Y
@Yamaeda wrote:
@crossrulz wrote:
Often also called Functional Global Variables. Here's where the term Action Engine was made: Action Engine. It is an excellent nugget to read through.
I make the distinction that if it's only get/set, then it's a FGV, if there's more commands it's an AE. 🙂
/Y
I fully agree. But there are plenty of people out there that will argue about that.
Wasn't there a long thread on what the definition should be and what to call an AE that gets really many and advanced functions? I guess there's a line when an AE becomes a object light or simply a sub-vi.
/Y
@Yamaeda wrote:
Wasn't there a long thread on what the definition should be and what to call an AE that gets really many and advanced functions? I guess there's a line when an AE becomes a object light or simply a sub-vi.
/Y
There was one over on LAVA right after NI Week:http://lavag.org/topic/17042-fgvs-action-engines-and-dvrs-a-rif-on-nancys-ni-week-presentation/
