Open Config Data (compatibility)

[lordsathish]

Hi Ppl,

I'm converting some of my code from LabVIEW 8.6 to LabVIEW 2010. My code uses the Open Config Data VI's. When I convert these VI's they are replaced the Open Config Data (compatibility) VI, with 8.6 icon in it. However there is a Open Config Data VI itself. Can I replace the Open Config Data (compatibility) with the Open Config Data VI itself ? is there any function difference between these two? Other than the file created output. 

Thanks,

Sathish 

[Ben]

With the obvious disclaimer re: unknown bugs...

The new version is the LVOOP implementaion and should be the same as far as usage. Implentaion has changed but not in a way that affects us.

The only change you may run across invloves using the VI's that were part of the old library but were not on the pallette. Specifically, "Save to file" is no longer available.

But if your code opens without errors, you should be OK.

Ben

[lordsathish]

Hi Ben, Thanks for ur resplying. My concern is since my code is using th 8.6 compatabilty VI, If its not supported in the future versions of LabVIEW, the code will break. And I read the following in LabVIEW 2010 upgrade notes.

Open Config Data (compatibility)—Use the Open Config Data VI instead. The Open Config

Data VI differs from the Open Config Data (compatibility) VI because the Open Config Data VI

includes the file created? output.

Does  this mean I have to manually replace the compatabilty VI's with the Open Config Data VI's ?

[Ben]

---

@lordsathish wrote:

Hi Ben, Thanks for ur resplying. My concern is since my code is using th 8.6 compatabilty VI, If its not supported in the future versions of LabVIEW, the code will break. And I read the following in LabVIEW 2010 upgrade notes.

Open Config Data (compatibility)—Use the Open Config Data VI instead. The Open Config

Data VI differs from the Open Config Data (compatibility) VI because the Open Config Data VI

includes the file created? output.

Does  this mean I have to manually replace the compatabilty VI's with the Open Config Data VI's ?

---

Again if your code did not open broken (if you had used the "Created" output of the old version, the code MAY have opened broken) then the compatability should work fine.

For future purposes, (writing new code from scratch) use the new version, but for now just use what LV put there. (I have never seen it fail, yet).

Ben

[JÞB]

---

@lordsathish wrote:

Does  this mean I have to manually replace the compatabilty VI's with the Open Config Data VI's ?

---

If you want to use the new versions you will need to manually replace the vis.  If you want to maintain the exact behavior of the original code you can just leave the compatability vis.  The powers that be at NI decided that changing the code willy-nilly for upgades might cause some headaches for us programmers and were kind enough to preserve original functionallity.

[lordsathish]

Thanks ppl for your responses. It really helped me a lot.

[rolfk]

If you dig into the Open Config Data VI you will notice that deep down there is a difference in the search pattern too, used to parse the file on loading. I haven't checked the exact difference but it seems they added some extra handling to the search pattern and to make sure old code doesn't break on non standard ini files, they added this option. If you don't hand edit INI files yourself or don't use external tools to edit them I seem to not have found any difference in using either of the two VIs in upgraded projects.

[Ben]

---

@rolfk wrote:

If you dig into the Open Config Data VI... but it seems they added some extra handling to the search pattern and to make sure old code doesn't break on non standard ini files, they added this option. If you don't hand edit INI files yourself or don't use external tools to edit them I seem to not have found any difference in using either of the two VIs in upgraded projects.

---

Now my curiosity is awaken.

Could you give an example of non-standard that is now allowed?

Ben

[rolfk]

Well there are people who add their own type of comments into the ini files, for instance using a text editor. Since NI modified the parsing strings in 2010 to match more possible syntaxes it's thoretically possible that those comments suddenly match the new parse patterns and incorrectly get interpreted as keys or sections. So by using the compatibility VI for upgraded code, that possible danger is avoided.

For new code people will end up using the new VI and will run into possible problems during application debugging so that is not an issue there, but you don't want to break (probably an unlikely situation but not impossible) existing applications when they get upgraded to the new LabVIEW version.

[Ben]

---

@rolfk wrote:

Well there are people who add their own type of comments into the ini files, for instance using a text editor. Since they modified the parsing strings it's thoretically possible that those comments suddenly match the new parse patterns and incorrectly get interpreted as keys or sections. So by using the compatibility VI for upgraded code, that possible danger is avoided.

For new code people will end up using the new VI and will run into possible problems during application debugging so that is not an issue there, but you don't want to break (probably an unlikely situation but not impossible) existing applications when they get upgraded to the new LabVIEW version.

---

Thanks Rolf.

I suspected simlar but was hoping the comments would be preserved since many of my customers have requested same but I had to resort to a "ReadMe" version that included comments for thier reference. I like them come from the "old days" when comments were allowed in .bat files etc.

Oh well, that's the way the bits fall.

Ben