dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 04:20:53PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> 
> 
> Anders Logg wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 04:11:40PM +0100, Johan Hoffman wrote:
> >>> Johan Hoffman wrote:
> >>>>> I think so.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't think a special --disable-modules will be necessary.
> >>>>> But we will need the following targets:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     make modules
> >>>>>     make modules_install
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then if one likes, one may enter into src/modules/demo and do
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     make
> >>>> Sounds good.
> >>>>
> >>> Sounds good to me too.
> >>>
> >>>>> One problem I have is that just moving demo, bench, test for modules
> >>>>> into src/modules makes a very flat structure, with navierstokes at the
> >>>>> same level as the demo for navierstokes. Perhaps we could have
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     src/modules/
> >>>>>     src/modules/solvers
> >>>>>     src/modules/solvers/navierstokes
> >>>>>     src/modules/solvers/elasticity
> >>>>>     src/modules/solvers/plasticity
> >>>>>     src/modules/demo
> >>>>>     src/modules/bench
> >>>>>     src/modules/test
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This could open up for creating other kinds of modules that are not
> >>>>> necessarily solvers.
> >>>> The modules seem not that specified right now, and naming a module after
> >>>> a
> >>>> certain equation may not be that good, for example since a typical
> >>>> module
> >>>> may be multi-physics based, or several methods may be used for solving
> >>>> the
> >>>> same equation. Also, I do not think the /modules/solvers level is
> >>>> needed,
> >>>> it should be enough with /modules. And I'm not sure that we need to have
> >>>> a
> >>>> separate level for classifying the type of modules either (flow, solid,
> >>>> etc.)
> >>>>
> >>>> I think we should have src/modules, where we today can put modules that
> >>>> are maintained (navierstokes, elasticity,...), in a flat structure, and
> >>>> the naming could be quite free: "fluid-structure-interaction-solver",
> >>>> "fsi-flash", "heart", or whatever reasonable (where maybe not *-falsh
> >>>> would qualify...).
> >>>>
> >>> I would like to introduce some structure just to keeps things looking
> >>> tidy. I don't mind categorising modules (flow, solid, etc). Rearranging
> >>> is only a question of "mv". To me it's just important that the modules
> >>> remain bundled together.
> >> I just worry that there may be as many categories as modules. Maybe we
> >> could add this categories layer later on when structures emerge, today we
> >> do not have that many modules.
> > 
> > The question is: should we say "this is the DOLFIN Navier-Stokes
> > solver module" or should we say "here's a module that solves
> > Navier-Stokes and here's another one".
> >
> 
> For the Navier-Stokes equations, the latter is preferable since there 
> are a truck load of possibilities, which holds for a lot of other 
> problems too.
> 
> Let's start with
> 
>    /src/modules/
>    /src/modules/solvers
>    /src/modules/demo
> 
> Garth

ok with me.

/Anders


> > If we want to provide just one module for each equation, then we
> > should try to enforce some structure.
> > 
> > /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