[suggestion] Save to previous version online service

[RavensFan]

---

wildcatherder wrote:
I sure wish the "zealous veteran" had suggested that in response to my request for an older version rather than just telling me to code it up.  I think veterans have difficulty realizing that it takes years to be able to look at these tiny icons and recognize the functions to which they belong.  If I have a working example I can use context help to get myself oriented.

---

Maybe.  But it depends on the VI.  If you have to go back several versions, it can be quite a bit of work to do a saveas, open in the previous, do another saveas, open in another previous.....  If it is a simple VI, it shouldn't take long to replicate it from a picture.  Yes, sometimes you don't know what a function means.  Whoever created the screenshot can help by turning on the label for some of the more confusing or less used functions.

It might take you longer to code up something from scratch than if you were more experienced, but it can take even longer for a LV veteran to save back 3 or 4 versions and it isn't worth it for a simple VI.  By coding it up yourself, you can learn a bit more in the process.  And whoever posts just a screenshot is still doing you a favor, and it wouldn't be fair to ask them to do more work than you are willing to do yourself.

[Ray.R]

Very well said Ravens Fan.

I could not have said it any better myself.

Wish I could give you kudos for that post.  Unfortunately, I cannot from this PC..  😞

[ceties]

The reason why I came with the idea of online service is that time to time each of us needs to backsave a VI. Then we are either dependent on somebody that converts it for us or uploads the picture of the VI. Other way is to have multiple LV version to have installed which I do not fancy. All of those solutions cost time either ours or somebody's else. The online service for backsaving would be helpful for that reason

Message Edited by ceties on 03-20-2009 08:27 AM

[falkpl]

Could this be realized with an FTP and batch processing.

Dump your 8.6 Vi in the 8.6 VI folder.  Labview 8.6 running on PC will take any 8.6 vi and save it to same name in 8.51 folder.  8.5 running at the ftp site scans 8.5 folder and does a save as previous version into the 8.21 folder and so on back down to LV 4.0.  if a vi can not be converted a VIname_error log.txt is placed in the corresponding versions folder.  It should be a service offered to the community by NI.  I dont have the resources to set this up but it should be doable.

[Ben]

---

Ravens Fan wrote:

---

wildcatherder wrote:
I sure wish the "zealous veteran" had suggested that in response to my request for an older version rather than just telling me to code it up.  I think veterans have difficulty realizing that it takes years to be able to look at these tiny icons and recognize the functions to which they belong.  If I have a working example I can use context help to get myself oriented.

---

Maybe.  But it depends on the VI.  If you have to go back several versions, it can be quite a bit of work to do a saveas, open in the previous, do another saveas, open in another previous.....  If it is a simple VI, it shouldn't take long to replicate it from a picture.  Yes, sometimes you don't know what a function means.  Whoever created the screenshot can help by turning on the label for some of the more confusing or less used functions.

It might take you longer to code up something from scratch than if you were more experienced, but it can take even longer for a LV veteran to save back 3 or 4 versions and it isn't worth it for a simple VI.  By coding it up yourself, you can learn a bit more in the process.  And whoever posts just a screenshot is still doing you a favor, and it wouldn't be fair to ask them to do more work than you are willing to do yourself.

---

There aren't many zealots so I'll confess to that one.

I can't agrue with the usefulness of such an automatic facility to back save code (since I suggested back about LV 6.1 going 7 days) but there are issue we will have to deal with if that idea ever becomes a reality.

1) Back saving is not always possible even if you have every tool-kit and add-on for every version.

2) This idea would take conciderable effort to put together and all of that effort would not help NI's bottom.

So if the community does not do it themselves OR we don't come up with  a money making aspect of this idea, then there wil always be "low hanging fruit" fro those that have older versions of LV and a desire to bump their post count.

IN the interest of maintaining the current intelectual content of the forums....

We should post image of code rather than actual code since the images will survive LV upgrades while those old example will become increasing less accesaible as more and more people abandon the older version.

Ben

[Ray.R]

---

Ben wrote:

We should post image of code rather than actual code since the images will survive LV upgrades while those old example will become increasing less accesaible as more and more people abandon the older version.

---

That is less of an issue either posting code or image because the code should be upward compatible for some time.

The problem is going the other way, from the new to the old.  It would be great to be able to work on a VI and it would save it at its original version.  

I do like what Paul suggested.  Even if it required someone to re-submit severat times to convert from let's say LV8.6 to LV5.1.  However, the trouble would be on how to deal with those features that didn't exist in the past....  How would the code be treated.  The code will most likely need to be fixed.  Who will fix it?

But as Ben pointed out, for the few times that there are requests to convert the code, maybe it is best that they rely on the services from within this forum.  It might be the best solution for the meantime...  I didn't say a pleasant solution, but a viable one.

[wildcatherder]

Yes, implementing useful features costs money.  As long as "it would be hard" is used as an excuse for things such as "back save" (where even partial conversions allow one to see the labeling of most icons) and zoom, which would enable one to clearly see the details of those icons on high-resolution screens (a feature long available in programs such as AutoCAD which can be used for circuit design, etc.) then new users will be discouraged by the idea of "bugging" (begging) strangers to back save code or having to purchase an expensive upgrade which they may not need or squinting their way through a project.

I do appreciate the help I have been offered but have many times seen companies use "bottom line" as an excuse for short-sightedness.

I guess an "IMHO" goes here.

[jon_mcbee]

I don't think I would be in favor of adding a zoom feature, it would encourage people to break with good style.  I don't see a block diagram that necessitates use of a zoom tool as being readable, which hurts scalability and maintainability.

[Ray.R]

wildc:  I don't understand what the zooming feature has to do with saving for previous?  They are two seperate topics, right?

A zooming feature would only encourage people to write bad code.  I initially wanted such a feature myself, but today, there is no way I would even consider it.

As for save for previous feature, yes I agree it would be nice.  However, I do understand the technical challenges that it would bring.  That's from working with LV since way back when..  And knowing the differences that the major releases offer.  Plus having converted code from a recent version to a much older one and having to fix the little things that broke along the way.    We're not tossing your idea, we're just saying that it would be a challenge that may not be worth the effort.  Remember, companies are in business to make revenue, not as a favor to society..  

[Dennis_Knutson]

A zoom tool would just encourage more people to do this and that would be a very bad thing.

I would also like to point out that keeping current is not that expensive as long as you maintain your SSP contract. I think it's a bit shortsighted not to keep this up to date.