Object-oriented programming as a technique promises a host of benefits, but suffers from the impression that it is in some way an “advanced” topic. In contrast, I feel that OOP is just a logical extension of the concepts that LabVIEW developers use every day. The basic problem has been with the way it has been taught. However, the various object-oriented frameworks that are overly complex and difficult to learn, haven’t helped matters. These bad “actors” often only serve to hide the inherent elegance of the OOP paradigm and scare off users that could benefit from it.
To help clear away some of the extraneous mystique, I have presented a brief introduction to the topic that provides a foundation sufficient to let us get into OOP by implementing a module for managing program configuration data that provides the calling application with a common interface regardless of how (or where) the data is stored.
Filling a Niche
Most of the work we will be doing will eventually replace the
Configuration Management library. Now while this might sound like a major shift, it really is not because (like I repeatedly tell you) the whole point of good design is to make changes and upgrades like this possible. So let’s look at what this upgrade will need to do.
Normally a large part of any upgrade projects is defining the requirements, but due to the design work that was put in originally, we already have a pretty good handle on what the new class structure has to do. In terms of surface functionality, we know we have to be able to handle all the same information as before — with, of course, the ability to add more when we want or need that ability.
Designing the Structure
The trick is going to be sorting out what new functionality will be needed under the covers. At the most basic level we need to be able use either text files or databases to actually store the configuration data, so there we have two subclasses. But we need to consider whether each of those options needs to be broken down further.
On the “text file” side, the data might be coming from a standard INI file, or the code might be in using a custom text file format. Custom text configuration files are very common when some of the configuration data is tabular, since it is a pain to store tabular data in an INI file. However, regardless of the format of the contents, the basic mechanism for reading and writing text files remains the same so it probably won’t be valuable to have any subclasses under “text files”.
On the “database” side of things, however, the situation is very different. First of all, in terms of connectivity, you can access most databases through the standard ADO (ActiveX Data Objects, also sometimes called ole-db) interface. However, “most” is not the same as “all” and one common exception is SQLite. A popular, lightweight data management engine, SQLite can run on a variety of platforms — including some real-time systems. To keep its footprint small, SQLite utilizes a small custom DLL, rather than a large, but standardized, interface. So we need to make provisions for other types of connectivity by creating (for now) two subclasses below “database”: “ado” and “sqlite” — though we won’t be implementing the SQLite functionality right now.
Finally, what about “ado”? Can it be broken down further? Maybe. One of the advantages of ADO is that it, for the most part it does a pretty good job of hiding the differences between one database management system (or DBMS) and the next, but there are some variations it can’t paper over. These differences often relate to the version, or dialect, of SQL the DBMS speaks. However sometimes differences arise because some DBMS fundamentally don’t operate the same. For example, while most DBMS go to extraordinary lengths to hide exactly where and how the data is actually stored, Jet (the DBMS built into Windows) stores the data in a file you explicitly identify. Hence, while the connection to other DBMS might be defined in terms of network paths and logical names, with Jet you are connecting to a particular file.
To provide for these sorts of functional nuances, let’s create a subclass below “ado” for “jet” — understanding there could be others in the future.
This is what the hierarchy looks like so far, all drawn out.
Doing the Rough Framing
When you are building a house the first tradesmen to show up onsite are the carpenters to do the so-called “rough framing”. This process creates the skeletal form of the final house that is covered with rough exterior plywood. The idea is that later workers will fill in the details and fine tune the construction. And metaphorically speaking, that’s what we have to do now for our configuration data class.
For a class hierarchy, that framing consists of the directory structure and the class files themselves. Using the techniques I gave last time, I first create mirroring directory structures inside the project directory and the project itself…
Note that I have also created some virtual folders inside the
Config Data class which represents actual sub directories.
The VIs in this folder will have public access scope. In fact they will be the only VIs in the library that are so scoped. Because these VIs are the only ones that outside callers will be able to call, they alone form the interface between the class hierarchy and the rest of the code.
As the folder title implies, the files that go in here will have
privateaccess scope. This assignment means that they will only be accessible from other VIs in the top-level class.
This is another folder that specifies access scope for its contents. In the case of
protectedscope, the VIs in this folder will only be accessible from the top-level class, or any of its child classes.
Creating the Interface
With the functional scaffolding in place, we can start filling in the blanks. And the first thing we need to do is create what I referred to as the “blueprint” in the previous post — the VIs that the rest of the application will call. After going through the public VIs in the old library we see that there are really only 4 VIs that the rest of the application uses directly
Get Default Sample Period.vi
Get Error Handling Parameters.vi
Get Processes to Launch.vi
Load Machine Configuration.vi
Many of the others will still be used, but their presence will be hidden in subclasses. As I create these (for now) empty VIs, I make sure they have the same front panels and connector panes as the ones they will be replacing.
Getting back to our housebuilding analogy: After the framework is completed and the outside skin is on, the next job is to start installing some of the needed infrastructure, because without electric, water, sewer and perhaps gas connections, our new home is not much better than the cave dwellings that our prehistoric ancestors inhabited — and in some ways is far worse.
What we need to add to our nascent configuration management subsystem is some data handling, but not for our data. The data I’m talking is the private internal data that the subsystem needs to maintain in order to do its job.
Thinking about what our various bits of code need to do, we see first that there is certain data that will commonly be needed regardless of how you actually end up getting the data. What I’m thinking about here is the name of the operator and a password. Now, some subclasses might need both, while others might need only one or the other, and that’s fine. The important point is that if all subclasses could potentially need at least some of this data, it has to be data that is associated with the top-level class. However, this requirement for global availability causes a problem.
Remember how when we were defining terms in the previous post we said that in the LabVIEW world an object is a wire? LabVIEW wires, and data contained in them are by definition not global. If you want data from a wire you need to be connected to it. So how can we create wires that are separate, but which still share at least some of the same data? Well, one very good way of doing it would be to create one central data store that all the wires can access, and as it turns out LabVIEW incorporates a feature that is very efficient and so is perfect for such an implementation. I’m talking about the Data Value Reference, or DVR.
Our approach will be simple. We first create a DVR that is defined to hold the data we need and make a reference to that DVR the class data for our
Config Data class. Then to access that data, we create a family of data access VIs to insert data into, or read data from, the DVR.
The first step on this process is to create another virtual folder in the top-level class named
privateaccess scope. Next, I create in that folder a typedef control named
Config Mgr Data.ctl that consists of a cluster containing two strings, one for user name and one for password.
When saving this control I create a subdirectory (called
_dvr) to hold it. Likewise, I also create a VI in the same directory (and virtual folder) called
Config Mgr DVR.vi that contains this code:
Two comments about this code. First, it has the basic form of a FGV where the variable value is the DVR reference. Because the case that generates the reference is only run once, this VI will always return a reference to the same DVR no matter how many times it is run. Second, the data for the DVR is the typedef we created. This point is critical. As with UDEs, if you define a DVR reference using a typedef, you can later change the typedef and it won’t break the reference.
To make this DVR available and inheritable through the class, I copy and paste the reference indicator into the class data cluster, like so.
Then to provide access to the DVR contents, I create
protected scope VIs that I store in a virtual folder and subdirectory both named
_data access. Here is what the read VI for the user ID parameter looks like…
…and the write VI…
I next realize that the two main subclasses also have some data that will need to be held in common for their subclasses. So I repeat the process I just used to store a file path for the
file subclass and the connection string that the
db subclass needs. Here’s what the project looks like now.
Finally, before moving on we are going to need a way to initialize all the logic we have created, and to do that we will take our first foray into the exciting — though sometimes confusing — world of creating dynamic dispatch VIs. The goal is to create a method called
Initialize New that causes the DVR in a new instance of a class to automatically initialize itself.
I start by right clicking on the
_protected virtual folder in
Config Data.lvclass and from the
New sub menu selecting the option to create a new VI using the dynamic dispatch template. I leave the front panel of the resulting VI the way it is, but I change the connector pane, edit the icon and add this code to the block diagram.
If the DVR in the class data is not valid, I call the DVR VI to get a valid reference and then use that reference to populate the class data. If the DVR reference is valid, the false case (not shown) does nothing. When I save this VI, I put it in a subdirectory named
To create the subclass versions of this method, I right-click on the subclass name and from the
New sub menu select the item to create a new VI for override — which is the technical term for what we are doing. We are overriding the parent functionality with different functionality in the child.
However before we get a new VI, LabVIEW opens a dialog to ask us which parent method we want to override. After double clicking on
Initialize New we get our new VI, also called
Initialize New. After saving this new VI, (the default location LabVIEW picks is perfect) I modify the code to look like this:
Most of this logic should be familiar because it is the same as we did for the parent. If the child DVR reference is not valid, we initialize it. Otherwise, we do nothing. But what is that funny looking VI in front of the initialization logic?
Object-oriented methodology recognizes that there are going to be times when a method in a child class will need to do what the parent method does, but perhaps a bit more or maybe do it a bit differently. One solution to this situation would be to simply duplicate all the parent code in the child. However that approach would be wasteful. What object-oriented logic does instead is it allows a child to directly call its parent’s version of the method. So here, the code first calls the parent’s version of the initialization VI and then executes the logic to initialize itself. In the end, both the parent and the child will get initialized.
The time is now upon us to start tying this infrastructure together into an organized system. The first thing to sort out is how to create an object of a given type. One way is very similar to what you would do with a conventional datatype. If you wanted to create, say an I32 value, you would drop down a constant and start using it. In the same way, you can also drop down a class constant and wire to it, thus creating an object. The problem with this approach is that when LabVIEW instantiates a class it also loads into memory all the VIs associated with the class. What you can end up with is a situation where all the VIs for all the classes are loaded, even if you will never use some of the classes. The way to get around that problem is to load classes dynamically as you need them. This is the code I use to perform that operation.
You will notice that the VI has no inputs, save the requisite error cluster. This is because the basic piece of information that specifies the specific class to be created will be loaded from the application INI file. But why the INI file? Isn’t the point of this exercise to get rid or configuration data in that file? Well yes, but there is a bit of a paradox at work here. Simply put, an application can’t go to a database it doesn’t know it has to find if it should look in the database to get its setup data. That basic piece of information has to be stored somewhere that will always be there, and on the Windows platform you have exactly two choices: the INI file and the Windows registry. Of the two, the INI file is much safer — you at least don’t have to worry about a user going wild and trashing their whole computer.
We are initially only going to support two options for managing configuration data, so we only need two settings (
Jet). The VI that communicates with the INI file reads one of these values from the
Configuration Data key in the
Data Management section and returns two values based on what it finds there: A relative path to the location of a class file, and the name of the file. Thanks to the naming convention we use, these two values are very closely related.
The remaining code loads the target class into memory and initializes it. In addition, the resulting object is buffered as in a FGV. For the details of how this process works, see the comments in the code. The final thing to notice is that the output from this VI is an indicator of the
Config Data class datatype.
Building Out the Remaining Methods
All that’s left now is to implement the code that does what the testbed needs done, however this post is getting long and I have already passed on a lot of information for you to absorb — so we’ll leave that discussion (and the testing!) for next week.
Until Next Time…