Ok this idea would be trivial for NI to include in 2011.Heck I could do it.
The idea is simply to include the JKI state machine in File/New/Design Patterns. It is BSD code and I am sure that JKI wouldn't mind anyway.
I must admit that I have an ulterior motive. If this were included in the NI distributed templates then I could use the JKI state machine for my CLD exam. And so could you!
Now let the kudos start rolling in so NI will take notice.
Í would opt for JKI to place a template state machine into the template folder.
Yes it is easy enough to put whatever you want to in the templates folder. But I want NI to put the JKI state machine in the templates folder. It is about time that they update the design patterns and this would be a really good one.
I plan on getting my CLD way before 2011 comes out. But if the state machine were already in the templates that NI ships I could use it on my exam.
This Jim from JKI.
Another approach to solving your dilemma would be to lobby the NI Certification department to allow CLD/CLA test-takers to use the JKI State Machine on the certification exams (plus, other cool stuff like the OpenG libraries, which I personally can't live without). Now that VIPM powers the LabVIEW Tools Network, we're probably getting closer to making that a possibility. I'll ping some people within NI about this, and see where it goes.
Thanks Jim. I use the OpenG libraries and it would really be nice if I could use them on my CLD exam.
Would you guys have any problem with NI distributing the JKI state machine in the design pattern templates?
Regarding NI distributing the JKI State Machine with LabVIEW, that's an interesting question that we'll think about 🙂
This is going to make me very unpopular but...How do I vote against this idea?
That design pattern ( I admit it is popular and USED to be tought in the Advanced course ) has been discussed multiple times and when put under the microscope, does not lend itself well to an easily understandable applcations since the transisions can NOT be defined ahead of time (try to draw up a state diagram that covers all of the transisions). I have seen more than one application where that design pattern was used as intended and resulted in a monster that even the original developers could not always follow.
In the interest of LabVIEW and its reputation as being easily understood code, please don't ship that pattern (or any other pattern that results in hard to read code) with LV.
I just published an article about how to use your favorite LabVIEW templates on your CLD/CLA exams. No matter which design pattern you prefer, you can use your favorite templates (including the JKI State Machine) on your exams today! It just takes a little bit of extra effort during pre-exam study, but it totally pays off.
Re: My comments above about a QSM.
Please see this thread as well as the LAVA threads that Daklu linked in his posts.
I have since read that and other threads by Daklu on the same subject. I agree that the QSM is not really a good design pattern when used inapropriatly. In fact the entire term "Queued State Machine" is kind of meaningless. It should be called a "Command Queue". Those are apropriate when used as such but they definately are not state machines in the pure sense.
I vote yes, but they really should change the name so it isn't confused with true state machines anymore.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.