1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 <2004> 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 | Index | 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 <2004> 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 |
<== Date ==> | <== Thread ==> |
---|
Subject: | Re: [Fwd: LabView/EPICS] |
From: | "Dale L. Brewe" <[email protected]> |
To: | Brian Tieman <[email protected]>, Ned Arnold <[email protected]> |
Cc: | APS tech-talk <[email protected]> |
Date: | Mon, 08 Mar 2004 11:36:22 -0600 |
Ned,
I've been using the Active-X implementation for a month or two now. It feels more like the Portable Server in that it's easy to create a PV and have it served without the complications of supporting a full record--which is a good thing! Since most of what I use LabView for is quick and dirty, I would be happy with this type of interface as opposed to full record support.
The biggest problem I have with this Active-X interface and LabView is that CA calls queue up. There's no support for anything like threads or even events. The created PV must be in a loop and checked periodically to see if a client requests a change. Also, once a change has been detected and the LabView process starts doing its thing, any subsequent client requests are ignored until the first request is completed. The client requests seem to be queued in some manner--which can be a real problem.