LabVIEW 2 Globals is a term used to describe the usage of uninitialized shift registers to store data in an application. This name comes from the fact that LabVIEW 2 did not have global variables and clever developers figured out that they could use uninitialized shift registers to store data, and make it globally accessible throughout the application.

If you had to introduce this concent to a new developer, what would you call LV2G's? Obviously there is some historical significance to the name, but it doesn't do much to describe the concept. How about "Uninitialized Shift-Register Globals" or "Uninitialized Shift-Register Data Store"? Any thoughts?

Cheers,

I think the official name for the "LabVIEW 2 Globals" is "Functional Globals". It is certainely not easier to visualize what it mean than "LabVIEW 2 Globals".

PJM

I usually call them 'intelligent globals'

-Franz

Hmmm... they are only functional or intelligent if you put some functionality inside of the case structure -- for example, by having operations besides Read Data and Write Data, such as Initialize, Do Task A, Do Task B, etc.. If there is no intelligent functionality in them, does that make them dysfunctional globals or unintelligent globals? I am, of course, being a little silly -- discussing LabVIEW should always be fun

I think that I am leaning towards functional globals. This term just implies that they have some functionality -- I wouldn't want to put too much pressure on beginners by making them think they have to write code that is intelligent

Thank you both, Philippe and Franz, for the ideas. I owe you each a frosty one

How about LabVIEW Advanced Virtual Architect Globals? LAVA Globals?

My functional globals almost always turn out to be intelligent globals to some degree ;-). In fact they are not really globals anymore but intelligent data storage containers.

But I think Functional Globals pretty much covers all of these aspects.

Rolf Kalbermatter

Intelligent Globals = Action Engine?

When I started working at my current job, all the LV'ers kept talking about Action Engines. I Googled, found little or nothing.

The first result while Googling LabVIEW "Action Engine" today ( 10 Jan 06 ) points to my own question to the LAVA Forum about Action Engines! The only other place I've seen the term mentioned is in some NI Forum postings by "Ben". I agree that a functional global by definition should simply store and return data. Maybe in the spirit of the discussion and considering LabVIEW 8, they should be called UNshared Variables?

Does anyone else like the term "Action Engine"?

This post has been edited by pbrooks100: Jan 10 2006, 01:15 PM

What about "Implicit Global"

Seems to be more precise a term... after all, the globals in the palette are "functional" as well (unless you write poor code... :-))
That way, uninitialized shift registers are "implicit" globals, as opposed to "explicit" globals from the structures palette.

Jeffrey Travis

i know them also under the name "old style global", which refers to the point which PJM mentioned a few posts above ...

if i put a case-structure with code in it, I usually call them "Objects", because these constructs show some parallels to C++ Objects. The methods of my "Objects" are called via an enum (mostly labeled "Action" [... which would imply an "action engine" ;-)] ), the members are stored in the shift register ...

what about this point of view?

With the omnipresent OO / UML /... it seems quite logical, but you will confuse any new LV-user.

As an "overall" subject name I like "LV-2-globals", To describe the internas I find your approach best.

I have created a poll. Let's find out what the consensus is.

You have forgotten the most obvious "LabVIEW 2 Globals", for every one who prefers the actual status.