dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 02:21:59PM +0200, Johan Jansson wrote:
> >> On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 07:42:39PM +0200, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > Yes, maybe this is the natural thing, although I'd say think that it may
> > be useful to keep one or two simple modules for demo and testing of new
> > functionality in the dolfin kernel. Although, a simpler structure would be
> > to put these demo-solver under src/demo, and remove src/modules.
> >
> > Then these simple modules could have the double role of demos and test for
> > new functionality. Or alternatively keep them under src/test.
> 
> I think the solvers and applications under src/demo are sufficient for
> testing DOLFIN, and there is no reason to keep the modules structure.
> 
> >>> In terms of maintenance, most modules are even less likely to be
> >>> maintained if they are spun off into a separate package. What about
> >>> just
> >>> letting individuals make modules available? Module developers closely
> >>> involved with FEniCS project could publish their modules under
> >>> http://www.fenics.org/dev/, and others could place them on their own
> >>> web
> >>> pages, with links from www.fenics.org.
> >
> > To publish ones own modules on ones homepage is of course available for
> > anyone, and should be encouraged.
> >
> > For our group, if the modules are taken out of dolfin I lean towards
> > publish our flow/fsi modules as a new fenics project under www.fenics.org,
> > focused on developing a generalized ALE solver for turbulent
> > incompressible/compressible fluid-structure interaction. These modules are
> > videly used at KTH and are very well maintained and are developing
> > rapidly, so this would be a FEniCS project that I expect would generate a
> > lot of interest and participation also outside KTH, which I got strong
> > indications of when this was last brought to discussion last fall.
> 
> Yes, I think it's very important to keep a focus on applications. FEniCS
> development is primarily driven by applications, and thus it's necessary
> that FEniCS has strong applications.

I'd say FEniCS development is primarily technology driven (which may
be good or bad) but we need both (technology + applications).

/Anders


> If we want to keep a focus on the FEniCS applications, I don't think a
> page with scattered modules is a very good method. The modules structure
> has also not been the driver of shared development that was the intent.
> 
> So I also think the natural step is to create a FEniCS project that
> develops automated applications. The aim would be to identify common
> methods that are implemented manually and reformulate the
> method/implementation in a general setting.
> 
>   Johan
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DOLFIN-dev mailing list
> DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev