When I give a queue a name, the name of the queue is always "queue out" which makes it hard to read

[JÞB]

---

@drjdpowell wrote:

---

@JÞB wrote:

Nice info but, since the queue is named, there really is no reason to carry the reference around on a wire! 

---

Or, since the Queue reference is carried around on a perfectly good wire, there is no reason to name it.  

---

Exactly!  Pick one or the other. Don't do both.  The OP specifically asked about named queues.

[rolfk]

---

@JÞB wrote:  The OP specifically asked about named queues.

But really wanted to have a specific name for the queue wire to show up in the context help or respectively the unbundle. But that name is independent of the queue name. Instead it is the wire label which inherits its name from the upstream control label by default. 

[JÞB]

---

@rolfk wrote:

---

@JÞB wrote:  The OP specifically asked about named queues.

But really wanted to have a specific name for the queue wire to show up in the context help or respectively the unbundle. But that name is independent of the queue name. Instead it is the wire label which inherits its name from the upstream control label by default. 

---

....however it could be bundled by name into cluster of type def <This QueueRef, ThatQueueRef, ...> or, simply show the wire lables and set them to what ever you want a cluster bundle (not by name) to pick up.

Neither is a good choice for named queues as discussed above.  I try to avoid giving advice on how to easily shoot yourself in the foot.

[~Its_Me~]

Hello Thank you all for the help! 

I tried to find a howto and did find this one:

http://www.mezintel.com/blog/labview-queued-state-machine/

When I take a look at picture 17 and If I understand you correctly, then it is not necessary to wire the outputs of obtain queue into a cluster? 

At first I did not understand picture 4, but it seems the subVi's in the flat sequence have got the Queue name inside? My first thought would be this is hard to read, even harder when you have got 10 or more SubVi's. 

So I ques my question is, is this a good example or could I better take a look at another one ?

[rolfk]

Looks fairly comprehensive and useful to me. With this single queue setup in one single top level VI I might have been prompted to wire the queues instead of naming them but a typical application has usually more than one queue and at least for some of them more than one producer and you may want to instantiate certain engines dynamically on demand and then the named queue is a lot more flexible, at the cost of having to do separate bookkeeping about the queues you have and their names.