dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 12:54:12AM +0100, Johan Jansson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 04:37:06PM -0600, Anders Logg wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:27:07PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > 
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > Yes.  I'm thinking that the main purpose of writing a function to a file
> > > is to allow a particular simulation to be restarted. In the vast
> > > majority of cases, a vector would be enough, and the mesh would be
> > > useful too in case a mesh is thrown away. When restarting a solver, I
> > > would expect that the user would already have the element available.   
> > > 
> > > Garth
> > 
> > Input/output of Vector from XML should work now.
> > 
> > Should be "easy" to add XML input/output for Function in the same way.
> > Anyone has a minute to spare to try and fix it?
> > 
> 
> I've started looking at this. If Vector and Mesh have input/output,
> then a Function should just have to write those two in the same file
> (alternatively store filenames of a vector and a mesh). We should make
> all the DOLFIN XML io functions write XML fragments only (i.e. skip
> the header), then we can reuse them in the way I've described. I'll
> work on this tomorrow.

Maybe we can just move the writing of the header to the constructor
and the writing of the footer to the destructor of XMLFile?

> We can assume the incoming file is a valid DOLFIN XML file (by Schema
> validation). The schema doesn't exist yet, but it will eventually..

I have never bothered to learn how to write a schema, but we do have

   <dolfin xmlns:dolfin="http://www.fenics.org/dolfin/";>

in the header and I suspect that is a reference to a schema? I don't
remember why I added this line but I vaguely remember I looked at the
XML format for an early version of Ko.

/Anders