dolfin team mailing list archive

["Garth N. Wells" <g.n.wells@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I use the mesh refinement, but it's not essential for me. In any case, I'm all
for a rapid transition to the new mesh library. Either go for the new library
now and implement the existing refinement algorithms afterwards, or implement
the existing algorithms for the new library, and then make the transtion. I
would not wait on new features or new refinement strategies. These can be added
once the new library is being used.

Garth


Quoting Johan Hoffman <jhoffman@xxxxxxxxxx>:

> >>> Apart from fixing various configure/compilation issues for 0.6.3, the
> >>> time has come to replace the mesh library. There are two main
> >>> options:
> >>>
> >>> 1. The first option is to just port everything right away to the new
> >>> mesh library. This should be fairly straightforward, since the API is
> >>> mostly the same and I have completed most of the functionality we use
> >>> (but we'll probably discover something missing along the way). One big
> >>> difference from before is that we can remove the templating in FEM and
> >>> just iterate over facets.
> >>>
> >>> 2. One big thing is missing and that is adaptive mesh refinement. I
> >>> have not ported the algorithms in MeshRefinement to the new mesh (but
> >>> uniform refinement is implemented). The second option is to wait until
> >>> we have adaptive mesh refinement in place.
> >>>
> >>> The choice would depend on how many are actually using adaptive mesh
> >>> refinement and how much work we want to spend on porting the mesh
> >>> refinement algorithms. The current implementation makes special use of
> >>> the old mesh data structures (including the class PArray which is up
> >>> for removal when the new mesh library has replaced the old).
> >>>
> >>> Any thoughts? Who is using adaptive mesh refinement?
> >>
> >> We are using local mesh refinement, and I believe this is a desireable
> >> feature for many users. Maybe I'm wrong?
> >
> > I agree it is desirable and of course we need it, but the question is who
> > is ready to port the existing (or an alternative) adaptive mesh refinement
> > algorithms to the new mesh library?
> >
> >> I do not think we should brake the local mesh refinement algorithms. At
> >> least there should then be the option of using the old mesh library
> >> until
> >> the local mesh refinement is in place in the new mesh format.
> >
> > There is always the option of using an old version.
> >
> >> If no one else is interested in this feature I will implement these
> >> algorithms. It would fit well with our activity in other mesh
> >> modification
> >> algorithms.
> >
> > Sounds very good.
> >
> >> But I still think the option of using the old mesh should be there,
> >> instead of breaking the local mesh refinement capability.
> >
> > With a reasonable level of commitment, we should be able to port the
> > adaptive refinement pretty quickly. Do we want to implement the same
> > algorithm as before or are there other options? It could for example be
> > desirable to implement something that does not need to operate on the
> > entire hierarchy.
> 
> We'll take a look at this the coming week. Feel free to come with
> suggestions regarding good available algorithms, or desireably features in
> a new algorithm.
> 
> /Johan
> 
> 
> >
> > /Anders
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > DOLFIN-dev mailing list
> > DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DOLFIN-dev mailing list
> DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
>