dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 09:36:27PM +0200, Johan Hake wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 October 2008 18:37:44 Anders Logg wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:55:10AM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> > > 2008/10/22 Johan Hake <hake@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > > > On Wednesday 22 October 2008 11:12:02 Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> > > >> 2008/10/22 Johan Hake <hake@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > > >> > On Wednesday 22 October 2008 10:17:43 Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> > > >> >> 2008/10/22 Johan Hake <hake@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > > >> >> > On Wednesday 22 October 2008 09:32:31 Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> > > >> >> >> 2008/10/22 Johan Hake <hake@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > > >> >> >> > On Tuesday 21 October 2008 23:23:27 Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> 2008/10/21 Johan Hake <hake@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > > >> >> >> >> > On Tuesday 21 October 2008 22:34:04 Martin Sandve Alnæs 
> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> >> 2008/10/21 Johan Hake <hake@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > > >> >> >> >> >> > On Tuesday 21 October 2008 21:37:13 Martin Sandve Alnæs 
> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> 2008/10/21 Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:01:53PM +0100, Garth N.
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Wells
> > > >> >
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Anders Logg wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:45:01PM +0100, Garth N.
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Wells
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I have a few questions and thoughts regarding the
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> new Function design
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> * It's not clear to me what the intention is with
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> user-defined functions. The functions
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Function::interpolate(...) never call eval(..),
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> so they can't pick up user-defined values. Should
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Function::interpolate test for the presence of a
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> GenericVector to decide whether or not the
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Function is discrete or user-defined?
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Yes, sorry. I've missed this. I'll fix it.
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> * It would be useful to declare user-defined
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> functions without associating a FunctionSpace. If
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> we want to interpolate the function, a
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> FunctionSpace must then be provided. Anyone see
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> any problems with this?
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > The reasoning here is that all Functions must
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > always be associated with a FunctionSpace so that
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > they may be correctly interpreted in forms and
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > correctly plotted. When a Function is created in
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > PyDOLFIN, it must always be associated with a
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > certain FiniteElement (and in a while
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > FunctionSpace). It would simplify the handling of
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Functions if they are always associated with a
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > FunctionSpace.
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I agree that is makes life simple if every function
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> has a space, but it is a bit clunky for declaring
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> user-defined functions. The forms must be declared
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> first to extract the finite element to create the
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> function space. Could look nasty when a lot of
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> functions are involved.
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> We have a function Function::interpolate which takes
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> a function space V as an argument and it
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> interpolates the function u in V. What if we permit
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> undefined function spaces (which perhaps only have a
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> domain)? We would then interpolate the user defined
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> function u in the provided space V.
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Garth
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Are user-defined functions ever used without being
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > related to a particular element/function space?
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > It don't think it will be very clumsy. The clumsy
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > thing will be to (in C++) get from something compiled
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > by a form compiler to a FunctionSpace.
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > If we can make that operation smooth, then creating
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > (user-defined) functions will be very simple and
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > convenient. One just needs to supply the variable V
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > holding the function space.
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > The current way of extracting function space data
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > from the form is not very nice (in C++). What would
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > be the optimal way to initialize a FunctionSpace in
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > C++? We could think of extending the code generation
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > to generate code that makes this convenient.
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> The current way of extracting function space data from
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> the form is not very nice in Python either, since it
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> doesn't work with compiled functions. (Never mind that
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> the current code is FFC-specific, this will be the same
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> with UFL).
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Using Python functors can easily make the assembly
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> slower than solving the linear system, so it's not
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> really interesting to do in real applications...
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> To make a function object that is both of a C++
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> subclass of dolfin::Function and of the Python class
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> ufl.Function, we can't use the fixed multiple
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> inheritance
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> solution in the current PyDOLFIN.
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> We would have to define a new class dynamically in
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> python, inheriting from both ufl.Function and the
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> freshly compiled C++ Function subclass. After all this
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> work cleaning up the Function class hierarchy, is that
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> really something you want?
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm not sure if that is even possible to do while
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> maintaining efficiency, with cross-language inheritance
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> and SWIG directors and all that.
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> If anyone has another solution, I'm very interested in
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> hearing it! Otherwise, I'm all for keeping the
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> ufl.Function objects used in form definition separated
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> from dolfin.Function objects used in assembly.
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> >> > I agree with Martin that we need to have a solution for
> > > >> >> >> >> >> > PyDOLFIN users that does not depend on using python
> > > >> >> >> >> >> > functors, as it will take forever for a complex form
> > > >> >> >> >> >> > together with a moderate mesh to just assemble the form.
> > > >> >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> >> > Is it possible to let compile_functions compile a cpp
> > > >> >> >> >> >> > function, with a FunctionSpace and all, instead of a
> > > >> >> >> >> >> > mesh as it is today. Then after doing
> > > >> >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> If you have a dolfin::FunctionSpace object already,
> > > >> >> >> >> >> there's no reason compile_functions can't take this
> > > >> >> >> >> >> instead of dolfin::Mesh. That's exactly the same and no
> > > >> >> >> >> >> problem at all.
> > > >> >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> > this compile_function extract the element, and
> > > >> >> >> >> >> > instantiate a UFL/FFC/PyFunction-function, and "attach"
> > > >> >> >> >> >> > the compiled version to it. This
> > > >> >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> What I state above is that this "attachment" must be done
> > > >> >> >> >> >> with dynamic creation of a new class with multiple
> > > >> >> >> >> >> inheritance. And I am unsure whether this will work out
> > > >> >> >> >> >> properly with SWIG directors etc. I believe it _may_ work,
> > > >> >> >> >> >> but I don't dare to keep my hopes up :-)
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> > Ok, I get it. For a moment I thought we could get away by
> > > >> >> >> >> > defineing our own PyDOLFIN::Function class that could
> > > >> >> >> >> > inherit from UFL/FFC, and then have a cpp_Function, but I
> > > >> >> >> >> > realise this will not work.
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> >> See the attached python file for a prototype of dynamic
> > > >> >> >> >> >> class creation with multiple inheritance using pure python
> > > >> >> >> >> >> classes. (I think this is called "aspect oriented
> > > >> >> >> >> >> programming" by some people)
> > > >> >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> > can be used to define forms, but more important it can
> > > >> >> >> >> >> > be handed to the python assembly that check if the
> > > >> >> >> >> >> > function has a compiled version attached to it and send
> > > >> >> >> >> >> > this to the cpp_assembler?
> > > >> >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> If the "attachment" is anything other than inheritance, it
> > > >> >> >> >> >> will have to be checked with manually written python code
> > > >> >> >> >> >> _everywhere_ a dolfin::Function is expected... We can't
> > > >> >> >> >> >> have one kind of functions for assembly and one for other
> > > >> >> >> >> >> stuff.
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> > Ok, I guess we have three different cases:
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> >  1) PyFunctions inherting from both UFL/FFC and
> > > >> >> >> >> > cpp_Function as today, taking a functionsspace in its
> > > >> >> >> >> > constructor. This will work with both user defined and
> > > >> >> >> >> > discrete functions, more or less as we have it today.
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> >  2) The special functions, MeshSize, etc, can also be
> > > >> >> >> >> > defined in the same way as now, right?
> > > >> >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> >  3) Using compile_functions, that creates a multi
> > > >> >> >> >> > inheritance object that can be sent to any function
> > > >> >> >> >> > expecting a cpp_Function, without manually extending the
> > > >> >> >> >> > python interface.
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> I'm with you up to this point.
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> > Could the last be done by letting compile_function create a
> > > >> >> >> >> > muliti inheritance Function. Instantiate the cpp_one with
> > > >> >> >> >> > the function space and by that creating a dummy
> > > >> >> >> >> > cpp_function. Then "attach" the compiled function to a
> > > >> >> >> >> > protected attribute and define eval, by overloading it in
> > > >> >> >> >> > python. This will then just call the attached and compiled
> > > >> >> >> >> > cpp_functions eval.
> > > >> >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> >> What you describe here sounds like the envelope-letter design
> > > >> >> >> >> that was just _removed_ from dolfin.
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> > Yes, but only for compiled functions in Python. No other
> > > >> >> >> > places.
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> What I'm suggesting is that
> > > >> >> >> >> compile_functions dynamically creates a Python class that
> > > >> >> >> >> inherits from ufl.Function and the freshly compiled C++
> > > >> >> >> >> class, which is a dolfin::Function subclass. Then it can
> > > >> >> >> >> construct an object of this new class, passing a
> > > >> >> >> >> FunctionSpace object given by the user to the
> > > >> >> >> >> dolfin::Function constructor, and an ufl.FiniteElement to the
> > > >> >> >> >> ufl.Function constructor.
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> > This sounds doable. I realize now that this was what you were
> > > >> >> >> > talking about in your previous emails, but I did not get it
> > > >> >> >> > until now ;)
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> This of course requires that dolfin.FunctionSpace
> > > >> >> >> >> is a Python subclass of dolfin::FunctionSpace with an
> > > >> >> >> >> additional ufl.FiniteElement member variable. Using jit,
> > > >> >> >> >> dolfin.FunctionSpace can compile the ufc::finite_element and
> > > >> >> >> >> ufc::dof_map classes it needs from an ufl.FiniteElement. And
> > > >> >> >> >> then there's the issue of reusing dofmaps, where DofMapSet
> > > >> >> >> >> enters the play...
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> > Do we need to jit compile ufc::finite_elements and
> > > >> >> >> > ufc::dof_maps from the created ufl.FiniteElement? What about
> > > >> >> >> > the one that follows from the FunctionSpace?
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> I was thinking about when _constructing_ the FunctionSpace.
> > > >> >> >> Just like PyDOLFIN uses jit in Function.__init__ today.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Ok, something like:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > # Note pseudo code...
> > > >> >> > class FunctionSpace(cpp_FunctionSpace):
> > > >> >> >    def __init__(self,ufl_finite_element,mesh):
> > > >> >> >        ufc_finit_element = jit(ufl_finite_element)
> > > >> >> >        form = ufl.FiniteElement*ufl.TestFunction*ufl.dx
> > > >> >> >        dof_map = jit(form)
> > > >> >> >        cpp_FucntionSpace.__init__(mesh,ufc_FinitElement,dof_map)
> > > >> >> >        self._UFL_FiniteElement = ufl_finite_element
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >    def UFL_FiniteElement(self):
> > > >> >> >        return self._UFL_FiniteElement
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > By this the the ufc_element, ufl_element, the dofmaps and the
> > > >> >> > mesh, are cached in the FunctionSpace.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > The Function would then be something like:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > class Function(cpp_Function,ufl.Function):
> > > >> >> >    def __init__(self,function_space):
> > > >> >> >        cpp_Function.__init__(function_space):
> > > >> >> >        ufl.Function.__init__(function_space.UFL_FiniteElement())
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > and dynamical created code in compile_functions()
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > class MyFunction(MyCompiledFunction,ufl.Function):
> > > >> >> >    def __init__(self,function_space):
> > > >> >> >        MyCompiledFunction.__init__(function_space):
> > > >> >> >        ufl.Function.__init__(function_space.UFL_FiniteElement())
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Something like that, yes. This is close to the current PyDOLFIN.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> But FunctionSpace might become a subclass of ufl.FunctionSpace
> > > >> >> if we introduce that in UFL, and it should be possible to get
> > > >> >> cached initialized and renumbered DofMaps from a DofMapSet.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Since a DofMapSet will typically be initialized with a Form,
> > > >> >> a Form depends on a Function, and a Function depends on
> > > >> >> a FunctionSpace which should be initialized by the DofMapSet,
> > > >> >> we have a cirular dependency right there.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > But won't you have this circular dependency in UFL already?
> > > >>
> > > >> In UFL this is simple:
> > > >>
> > > >>   FiniteElement depends on nothing
> > > >>   Function depends on FiniteElement
> > > >>   Form depends on Function
> > > >
> > > > I ment for a potential FunctionSpace class in UFL.
> > >
> > > Then it is simply:
> > >
> > >    FiniteElement depends on nothing
> > >    FunctionSpace depends on FiniteElement
> > >    Function depends on FunctionSpace
> > >    Form depends on Function
> > >
> > > >> The relation between UFL and UFC code is (at a certain level) simple:
> > > >>
> > > >>   ufc::* is generated by form compilers from ufl.* (equivalently
> > > >> ffc.*) once generated, ufc::* depends on nothing
> > > >>
> > > >> In DOLFIN (C++) it is also simple:
> > > >>
> > > >>   dolfin::* does not depend directly on ufl.* (equivalently ffc.*)
> > > >>   dolfin::* depends on ufc::*
> > > >>
> > > >> PyDOLFIN could (should!) be kept simple. I've been using PyDOLFIN
> > > >> without the FFC-dependent multiple inheritance stuff all the time
> > > >> with the dolfin.cpp_* classes.
> > > >
> > > > Me too.
> > > >
> > > >> I believe that's also how it must be
> > > >> done if you have external UFC code, e.g. precompiled in a library
> > > >> or manually written.
> > > >
> > > > Agree.
> > > >
> > > >> So no matter what, it should at least be possible to avoid
> > > >> relying on the multiple inheritance and JIT in PyDOLFIN.
> > > >
> > > > and more or less have the possibilities we have today. I agree.
> > > >
> > > > Johan
> > >
> > > Seems at least we're on the same page here.
> >
> > I've been in meetings the whole day and it took me a while to get
> > through the discussion... :-)
> >
> > I agree that life would be easier if we did not need to worry about
> > integrating UFL, UFC, and DOLFIN, but I think we should. I don't think
> > a user should need to worry about the relations between all the
> > different flavours of for example the finite element abstractions. We
> > have quite a few:
> >
> >   ufl.FiniteElement
> >   ufc::finite_element
> >   dolfin::FiniteElement
> >   dolfin.FiniteElement
> >   FIAT.FiniteElement
> >   (ffc.FiniteElement)
> >   ...
> >
> > DOLFIN plays two roles here:
> >
> > 1. It functions as a user interface/problem-solving environment and as
> >    such should present a clean and simple interface where only one of the
> >    above flavours should be visible.
> >
> > 2. It provides a general assembler, and as such should provide an
> >    assembly algorithm that just works with ufc:: types (+ mesh and
> >    linear algebra).
> >
> > So, we need to provide (1) for general use (and make it efficient) but
> > also allow (2) for experts.
> >
> > So far, I like Martin's idea with dynamic inheritance to solve (1).
> 
> So you don't like the way we have it now, where a jit compiled function can't 
> be used in a form statement? Or are you fine with it? If you are fine with it 
> we do not need the dynamics inheritance. 
> 
> Johan

I think that there should be an easier way to use jit-compiled
functions. The optimal would be if one could do something like

  f = Function(V, cppstring)

-- 
Anders

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature