| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
Johan Hoffman wrote:
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 itmaybe useful to keep one or two simple modules for demo and testing ofnewfunctionality in the dolfin kernel. Although, a simpler structurewould beto put these demo-solver under src/demo, and remove src/modules. Then these simple modules could have the double role of demos and testfornew 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 developerscloselyinvolved 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 availableforanyone, 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 underwww.fenics.org,focused on developing a generalized ALE solver for turbulent incompressible/compressible fluid-structure interaction. These modulesarevidely used at KTH and are very well maintained and are developing rapidly, so this would be a FEniCS project that I expect wouldgenerate alot 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). /AndersI agree that we need both. But I think the applications angle is missing in FEniCS today. Therefore our group will take on the responsibility to launch a new project in this direction, aimed at the FEniCS vision from a top-down perspective; starting from advanced applications, and identifying common abstractions.
Why is a separate project required to achieve this goal? DOLFIN development is already driven by both the needs of applications and the investigation of new technologies.
Garth
The project will initially be based on our Dolfin FSI solver, as a prototype for a general computational continuum mechanics solver. I'll send out a note on fenics-dev, where I think this discussion belongs. /JohanIf 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_______________________________________________ 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
| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
