dolfin team mailing list archive

["Martin Sandve Alnæs" <martinal@xxxxxxxxx>]

2008/12/8 Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 06:02:48PM +0100, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
>> 2008/12/8 Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> > On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 04:42:32PM +0100, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
>> >> It doesn't feel right to place this code in either UFC or UFL, maybe
>> >> we can place it in DOLFIN?
>> >>
>> >> It doesn't have to result in circular dependencies if we do it like this:
>> >>
>> >> # in ffc/sfc:
>> >> from dolfin_utils import generate_wrappers
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> What we need in dolfin is simply to add a module site-packages/dolfin_utils/
>> >>
>> >> If I get a green light, I'll go ahead and add my dolfin wrapper
>> >> generation code in dolfin.
>> >
>> > Sounds good to place it DOLFIN.
>> >
>> > There are quite a few "utils" already under misc/utils:
>> >
>> > convert  gid     matlab  opendx  python  system  xml
>> > emacs    inp2dx  octave  order   swig    vim
>> >
>> > Some of these are old and might not even work but some of them might
>> > be useful. Would any of these be appropriate to put under
>> > dolfin_utils?
>>
>> I don't know all those, but providing access to e.g. dolfin-convert
>> functionality from python through dolfin_utils doesn't sound like a
>> bad idea.
>
> Should dolfin_utils be limited to modules that don't depend on DOLFIN?
> The conversion functionality depends on DOLFIN as far as I know.
>
> One option could be to have both dolfin_utils (don't depend on DOLFIN)
> and dolfin.utils (may depend on DOLFIN), but that might be too much of
> a hassle. What do you think?

That's a good point. We can't have any dolfin dependencies
on dolfin in dolfin_utils, that was the point in the first place.

--
Martin