| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
Anders Logg wrote:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 11:12:14AM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:2008/9/8 Johan Hoffman <jhoffman@xxxxxxxxxx>:2008/9/8 Dag Lindbo <dag@xxxxxxxxxx>:Anders Logg wrote:There seems to be a problem (among many) with the current design of the Function classes (see thread "evaluating higher order mesh function"). In particular, the finite element is missing in DiscreteFunction. My suggestion would be to just add it and let a DiscreteFunction consist of the following four items which are always available: mesh, x, dof_map, finite_element Is this enough, and what other issues to we need to fix?I'm not sure I agree that the dof map and finite element should be owned by the discrete function. There was a great suggestion from Martin, in a thread "Abstraction idea" from 06/05/2008, to create a class FunctionSpace where the mesh, element and dof_map(s) are aggregated. Citing Martin: U = FunctionSpace(mesh, dofmapset, form, 0) # or something similar u = Function(U) v = Function(U) This seems a solid approach to me since it would provide a way of encapsulating the mathematical formulation of the problem, which is more or less const and likely to be reused by many discrete functions in a solver. It seems to me that there is an obvious risk that a lot of redundant initialization would occur if all discrete functions should own their own elements and dof maps. There seems to be consensus that the mesh should be "global" for efficiency reasons, so why not treat the function space the same way? Is there a problem with an approach where the funciton _always_ owns the vector and _never_ owns the function space (and mesh)? A very strict design would avoid shared/smart pointers, provide a comprehensible user interface and probably help the parallellization effort. /DagIf the Function always owns the vector, there are cases you'll have to make unneccessary copies of a vector, in particular such scenarios may occur when trying to combine dolfin with something else. If the Function never owns the function space, it must always be constructed explicitly by the user. This may not be a bad thing. However, if the Function is loaded from a file, nobody owns the FunctionSpace.Conceptually, I agree with Dag (and Martin?) that it is natural to have global function spaces. And if the explicit construction of such spaces can be made simple, it may not be a bad thing but a natural part in setting up the mathematical problem. And I do not really like that functions should be initialized from a form, which defines an equation. I think one idea was to not force less mathematically oriented users to worry about function spaces. I guess there are (at least) 2 types of functions: (i) functions part of the form, and (ii) functions not part of the form, but used in pre/postprocessing etc. For (i) it may be natural to construct the function space from the form, and for (ii) it may be convenient in some cases, but it is not really obvious that this is the best solution. Maybe an explicit construction of a function space can come with a default, such as a nodal basis of piecewise linears? /JohanSo: FunctionSpace V(mesh); Function f(V); gives a function f on piecewise linears? That's ok with me. About ownership, I think the only both robust and intuitive solution is that an object never should store a reference (or regular pointer) to another object. But as long as we are aware of the cost of doing this and state it clearly in the documentation, I'm ok with keeping e.g. the Mesh references like we do.
Agree.
Any time object A stores a reference to object B, the user must take care that the lifetime of B exceeds the lifetime of A. There are no exceptions to this. This puts some real limitations on the way the user must structure his program, e.g. he must sometimes (often?) keep objects around longer than they're explicitly needed.
For more complicated it is often necessary to keep a lot of objects around to prevent them going out of scope, and it's then necessary to pass more function arguments. These two points obscure my code and have proved to be a source of bugs.
This may be a good thing, since it forces the user to think about dependencies and object lifetimes, and the objects in question use some memory.I think this is ok. There are many ways to create a segfault in C++. If you program in C++, you will have to think about memory.But if we use references instead of shared_ptr, we should never have default values: - A Function has a reference to a Mesh, which is ok since it's always created outside. - If a DiscreteFunction is to have a reference to a Vector, or a Function is to have a reference to a FunctionSpace, it cannot create its own without adding memory management code.
I like a mixture of references and smart pointers because references are unambiguous in terms of ownership and smart pointers take care of themselves. The answer as to whether something should be a reference or a smart pointer is usually pretty clear.
Garth
Every place we accept these limitations and requirements of how the user structures his programs, we can use references and be done with it. But don't think that the pretty syntax means the user doesn't have to think about memory management, since all the responsibility for memory management (object destruction order) is in fact placed on the user, and errors from the users side will lead to invalid references we cannot detect and segfaults.I want the syntax to be simple and pretty, but I don't necessarily want to hide the user from problems that are part of the design of C++. It isn't Python or Java. You should be expected to know what you are doing. :-) Anyway, I like the idea about having a FunctionSpace class which several Functions may share. The problem we need to solve is reading from file: FunctionSpace V(mesh); Function u(V); file >> u; The last line just fills out the data in both u and V. This will lead to side effects as V might be changed when doing FunctionSpace V(mesh); Function u(V); Function v(V); file >> u; V will be changed, both for u and v. In fact, the mesh will also be changed. The best thing would be if we could do file >> (mesh, V, u); ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
