dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 07:32:47PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> Quoting 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.
> > 
> 
> I see putting everything module-related under src/modules as a way to give the
> modules a degree of independence without introducing the need to maintain a
> separate tree, thus avoiding the work involved. It would also be a good time to
> introduce some basic tests for the modules.
> 
> > If not, I like the idea of putting everything module-related in
> > src/modules/.
> > 
> 
> Is this a positive or a negative reaction :)?

Positive! Either someone is willing to maintain the modules separately
(which does not seem to be the case) or we maintain them separately
but as part of DOLFIN.

Let's put 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?
> >
> 
> Not sure what's best.

ok, let's think about this.

Anyway, it's probably good to wait until after the release.

I've been busy thinking about compilation of DG forms today, so the
new release won't be until tomorrow (if no one else wants to make the
relese before then).

/Anders

> 
> Garth 
> 
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > DOLFIN-dev mailing list
> > DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
> >