On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 10:51:57PM +0100, Anders Logg wrote:
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 10:05:02PM +0100, Johan Jansson wrote:
The way I see modules is that they shouldn't exist at all. A module
today is some equation- or domain-specific functions and
algorithms. But the goal of FEniCS is that we shouldn't need
equation-specific methods and algorithms.
[...]
This is true, but we will always need the modules/solvers.
A solver is something that specifies a number of fixed parameters,
like which equation to solve, and allows a user to specify some
others.
This allows a user to solve say Navier-Stokes with a given right-hand
side on a given domain (and some other parameters).
If we didn't have the Navier-Stokes solver, one would need to at least
write down Navier-Stokes and we can't expect everyone to know that
(not to mention writing down the weak formulation including
stabilization etc).
So, in the end the modules could be very very short but they will still
be there.
/Anders
Yes, but if an entity only consists of written-down equations +
coefficients, then let's call it an equation? And if an entity
consists of equation-specific low-level functionality, then let's call
it a module?
Otherwise we have that a module consists of "stuff", which can be
anything. And it becomes more difficult to quantify the progress of
FEniCS, since everything looks the same, regardless if it's
generalized/automated or not.
