From Friday, April 19th (11:00 PM CDT) through Saturday, April 20th (2:00 PM CDT), 2024, ni.com will undergo system upgrades that may result in temporary service interruption.
We appreciate your patience as we improve our online experience.
From Friday, April 19th (11:00 PM CDT) through Saturday, April 20th (2:00 PM CDT), 2024, ni.com will undergo system upgrades that may result in temporary service interruption.
We appreciate your patience as we improve our online experience.
06-05-2014 09:43 AM
Sorry to hear. In our case it turned out to be a mistake we were making. Fixed now.
Thanks.
12-17-2015 02:26 AM
What was your mistake at that time?
I am running in the exact same problem. maybe there is a very simple explaination.
12-17-2015 02:40 AM
I must admit I'm in a bit of pre-christmas dementia what the exact issue and application was....
From what I have learned about PPLs in the meantime, I do assume the problem back then was propably a name-space issue... using ppls do change the name space. This means that for the compiler MyClass.lvlib is completely different to MyClass.lvlib class within a PPL.
So maybe that's why it failed.
But, as stated above... I really can't remeber exactly
12-17-2015 05:01 AM
got it.
It is a namespace problem.
Leaving the parentclass in the main application is not an option. I build the parentclass and the childclass into packed libs and am loading both classes from the packed lib.
In the packed library the parentlib will always appear as an dependence, which I think is a useful feature.
Doing this the parent class always fits to the childclass created, and you do not run into problems which different parent classes in different versions.
Thanks a lot anyway for your help!
12-17-2015 05:34 AM
You're welcome, glad you solved it
11-29-2021 12:48 AM
The title says "to More Specific Class". The text for problem description says "to More generic Class". It is confusing!
BTW, After years, I had thought LabVIEW has duplicated enough OOP features from .net language.. Apparently, NI did a lousy job.
11-29-2021 02:31 AM
@Charlie2021 wrote:
The title says "to More Specific Class". The text for problem description says "to More generic Class". It is confusing!
BTW, After years, I had thought LabVIEW has duplicated enough OOP features from .net language.. Apparently, NI did a lousy job.
LabVIEW was never meant to copy .Net but implement its own OOP in a way that was feasible inside LabVIEW. .Net is simply one way of doing OOP, and by far not the best one.
If anyone copied anyone it was C# copying Java, because Microsoft did not get along with Sun Microsystems. They have diverged now a bit but in the beginning C# and by extension much of .Net OOP was almost a bit for bit copy of Java under a different name and icon.