Note that the ability to do this on the Front Panel is available in the as-yet-unreleased LV 2011. I mention this for any readers who are confused by the request as written here.
Connector panes can only be used with Front Panel objects. Why would you want it viewable on the block diagram? I apologize but I thought you just wanted to connector pane to be always viewable which is an option in the LV 2011 Beta right now based on the other idea I linked. I would oppose this idea then because having the connector pane viewable on the block diagram would led people to believe they could connect any object on the block diagram to the connector pane. They would be confused when we wouldn't allow them to connect a constant or while loop to the connector pane. I will reopen the idea so that the community can have it's say but I am opposed to this idea.
I may not be a convert yet, but I am certainly not so quick to dismiss this suggestion.
> Connector panes can only be used with Front Panel objects.
I am inclined to view that as a shortcoming. I happen to think that the ConPane is more naturally and intimately tied to the BD than the FP. When it comes to arranging terminals, I typically want the layout to reflect the BD, not the FP. If I rearrange the FP do I think I have to go shuffle the connector pane? No. If I rearrange the BD I may reconsider the terminal layout. I would not mind a method to quickly connect a ControlTerminal object to the ConPane. If the first click of the wiring tool chooses a ConPane terminal, the second could select the BD terminal to connect. Besides, the Terminals are often more closely situated than their controls making the carpal-tunnel-taxing back and-forth wiring dance a bit easier on the BD.
> ...having the connector pane viewable on the block diagram would led people
to believe they could connect any object on the block diagram to the
connector pane. They would be confused when we wouldn't allow them to
connect a constant or while loop to the connector pane.
Those who would try to connect a While loop probably have tried to connect a FP decoration, both the FP and BD have objects which do not make sense to wire to the ConPane. It can not be that hard to figure out that if it is not a Terminal it is not connectable.
I'd be more strongly in favor of this, but I almost always use my own ConPane Editor similar to what I wish for here:
I typically want the layout to reflect the BD, not the FP
I am the exact opposite. In my mind, the FP should match the conpane as best as possible. I like my BD to be arranged so that wires are short and with few kinks. If that means the Error In node is at the top, so be it.
NI seems to think they should match both. If you look at default templates (such as Dynamic Dispatch VIs) or at NI-made subVIs, you see that the FP and the BD try to match the conpane locations.
Personally, I don't think having the conpane on the BD is a bad thing, as long as we'd be able to use it as the standard conpane. After making 2 subVIs, a user is most likely going to know that the conpane only works with controls and indicators, so I don't see it being a big problem.
I post this idea because somethimes the control/indicator you are going to connect may not be visible on the FP. Everytime a user needs to link such terminal, he has to go to BD to show the control/indicator, go to FP, move to the place and wire it, then go back to BD to hide it.
This is especially annoying in a subVI which you only want the user to see the graph and the graph is scaling with the window. In this case, I have to cancel the scaling, go to the control/indicator, and go back to the graph and re-scale it.
I can see using "create control" on the diagram and then wanting to add it to the conpane without going to the panel. It hadn't occurred to me that extra step was unnecessary... I would certainly use this feature if we had it.
PS: I didn't mean to imply in my earlier post that this was a duplicate idea. I was just trying to clarify that it was an extension to a feature that many people may not have seen yet.
