dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

This would effectively be the same as having the modules in a separate
source tree (since we have separate demo, test and bench).

Then it would also make sense to have them in a separate tree, as long
as someone wants to maintain the separate tree.

The amount of work would increase, so a separate tree only makes sense
if someone else is willing to do the work.

If not, I like the idea of putting everything module-related in
src/modules/.

Should we have make modules modules_install modules_demo modules_bench
etc or should one enter into src/modules and do make etc from there?

We would also need to put the swig interface into src/modules.

We could also have modules that are only Python-based.

/Anders


On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 02:47:03PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> What about moving src/demo/solvers to src/modules/demo, and giving more 
> structure to the module directory and making them more descriptive, e.g.
> 
> src/modules/flow/incompressible_nse
> src/modules/flow/compressible_nse
> 
> src/modules/solid/elasticity
> src/modules/solid/plasticity
> 
> src/modules/mesh/. . . .
> src/modules/misc/. . . .
> .
> .
> src/modules/test/. . . .  (tests for modules)
> src/modules/bench/. . . . (benchmarks for modules)
> 
> src/modules/demo/. . . .
> 
> For example, there is a module "navierstokes" (which is working very 
> nicely now), but there are different approaches to solving the Navier 
> Stokes equations depending on the regime of interest.
> 
> This way the modules are kept together and are relatively self-contained 
> (on top of the kernel) but remain with DOLFIN.
> 
> Garth
> 
> 
> Johan Hoffman wrote:
> >> Then I think we should also have demo, test, bench at the top and just
> >> keep the library in src (removing kernel).
> > 
> > Could make sense.
> > 
> >> Is that a good idea?
> > 
> > I do not know.
> > 
> >> I would also not object putting the modules in a separate source tree,
> >> but then I'd like someone to maintain the modules (anyone from KTH?)
> >> with an identical release schedule as for DOLFIN and identical version
> >> numbers.
> > 
> > Wasn't that what you did not want a month back? I thought we agreed on
> > that it would not benefit DOLFIN to extract the modules. What Garth
> > suggests I think is something different, less dramatic.
> > 
> > /Johan
> > 
> > 
> >> /Anders
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 08:46:39AM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >>> What if we move the modules (and module demos) out of the DOLFIN source
> >>> tree and have
> >>>
> >>>    src/ . . .
> >>>
> >>> and
> >>>
> >>>    modules/solvers/ . . .
> >>>    modules/demo/ . . .
> >>>
> >>> We can give more prominence to the modules (as we've discussed before),
> >>> and encourage people to contribute modules by promoting them more as
> >>> "attachements" to DOLFIN.
> >>>
> >>> Garth
> >>>
> >>> Anders Logg wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 09:58:26PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >>>>> Sounds good. "make demo" won't necessarily work if the modules
> >>> haven't
> >>>>> been built though.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> An alternative if a configure flag --enable/disable-modules.
> >>>> That will have the same effect (not being able to build module demos).
> >>>>
> >>>> Perhaps we could have a flag make_module_demos, but maybe we should
> >>>> try to keep the number of targets down?
> >>>>
> >>>> /Anders
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Garth
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Anders Logg wrote:
> >>>>>> I'm suggesting to add the following new make targets:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>     make modules
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>     make modules_install
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As it is now, compiling the modules takes a considerable time of the
> >>>>>> build process and we have quite a number of users on Simula that
> >>>>>> are only interested in building the kernel.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Any objections?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> /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
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DOLFIN-dev mailing list
> DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev