CLD and AF Pattern

[taras_33]

Quick question: Can I use Actor framework instead Produser - Consumer pattern for the CLD exam?

[crossrulz]

If you can get it to work in the given amount of time, go ahead.  Granted, AF is probably a lot more complicated than the problems you will encounter in the CLD.

[taras_33]

I just compared the time that I spent programming ATM using AF and Produser Consumer. Time is almost the same, but using the AF block diagram (Actor Core UI) looks much cleaner. I think it will make a couple of extra points.

Thanks

[Hooovahh]

Do what you are most comfortable with, given the time constraints.  Personally I didn't use the Actor Framework on the CLD, and wouldn't (or haven't?) on the CLA.  I understand the Actor Framework but when time is the major constraint, over complicating it can cause you to trip up, and have more VIs to document eating up more time.

For my CLD I had a single queued message handler state machine.  Which used an array of strings as the states and would delete from the front of the array as the state to perform.  This design was simple and got me my 93%.  In my case no producer consumer was needed and an actor design would seem like major over kill.

[crossrulz]

---

Hooovahh wrote:

For my CLD I had a single queued message handler state machine.  Which used an array of strings as the states and would delete from the front of the array as the state to perform.  This design was simple and got me my 93%.  In my case no producer consumer was needed and an actor design would seem like major over kill.

---

In hind site, my 97% could have been done with a single loop (state machine).  I had an event loop that I could have done without.

[Rodéric_L]

I passed my CLD with a single loop with an event structure inside and a state machine in the timeout case

I also used the KISS* principle successfully for the CLA

(*KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID)

Using the AF will not help you for the CLD IMHO. AF should give you some extra points for the CLA especially for the Architecture grading, however, the grading system requires you to "put the requirements as fast as possible, instead of using the neater architecture" from my point of view

[JÞB]

I'll Chime in!  (That usually means I'm going to say something nasty)

Actor Framework is a wonderful way to go..... I hate it!  Not because it is poor!  It really is a fine exapmle of of how to do Software Engineering in LabVIEW WELL!  I just cannot explain it to my clients.  They want code thay can read and do not have the experience Stephen has.

LabVIEW, So easy a caveman can do it!  and get certified! KISS! 

Take the test, don't try to outsmart the graders.  AF is good stuff but, do you think you need it?

Spoiler

Ouch, Sorry sir,

[FabiolaDelaCueva]

---

@JÞB wrote:

I'll Chime in!  (That usually means I'm going to say something nasty)

Actor Framework is a wonderful way to go..... I hate it!  Not because it is poor!  It really is a fine exapmle of of how to do Software Engineering in LabVIEW WELL!  I just cannot explain it to my clients.  They want code thay can read and do not have the experience Stephen has.

LabVIEW, So easy a caveman can do it!  and get certified! KISS! 

Take the test, don't try to outsmart the graders.  AF is good stuff but, do you think you need it?

Spoiler

Ouch, Sorry sir,

---

I agree with Jeff on keeping it simple and no not trying to outsmart the graders. As far as whether to use AF or not for the CLD. My personal opinion is that it is overkill, however, here is what I tell people I coach to take the tests:

Use whatever you are more comfortable with. If you are already using AF in your day to day work and you are fast using that, use that. If you use state machines in your day to day work, use that.  If QMH is your cup of tea, use that... you get the picture. Don't try to impress the graders, the important thing here is to implement a solution for the given problem using LabVIEW. Not to show all your bag of tricks (this applies to the CLA as well, no need to show off that you know every corner of the LabVIEW world, you don't have time for that in 4 hours!).

My 2 cents,

Fab