dolfin team mailing list archive

[A Navaei <axnavaei@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

2009/2/24 Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 08:49:27PM +0000, A Navaei wrote:
>> 2009/2/24 Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 08:07:43PM +0000, A Navaei wrote:
>> >> 2009/2/24 Johan Hake <hake@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> >> > On Tuesday 24 February 2009 16:17:43 A Navaei wrote:
>> >> >> 2009/2/24 Johan Hake <hake@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> >> >> > On Tuesday 24 February 2009 01:08:11 A Navaei wrote:
>> >> >> >> Finally after all those long discussions on the best way of
>> >> >> >> architecturing variational image processing problems based on dolfin,
>> >> >> >> a minimal demo showing how to solve a classical motion estimation PDE
>> >> >> >> is available now -- thanks for all the support. Detailed explanation
>> >> >> >> is given here:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> http://code.google.com/p/debiosee/wiki/DemosOptiocFlowHornSchunck
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Currently, the c++ implementation is done and the python wrapper is on
>> >> >> >> the way.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Cool!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> I have tried to perform sub-classing as much as possible and leave the
>> >> >> >> rest to be implemented outside of the main classes. While this works,
>> >> >> >> there is a tiny problem which I'm not quite happy about. Here is
>> >> >> >> what's happening:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> [ITK-backend]
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>       v
>> >> >> >> [GenericImage]-------\
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>       v              |
>> >> >> >> [ImageToMesh]        |
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>       v              |
>> >> >> >> [FunctionSpace]      |
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>       v              |
>> >> >> >> [ImageFunction]<-----/
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> If you still cannot see what's happening, get a monospace font :) What
>> >> >> >> I don't like is the right branch connecting GenericImage to
>> >> >> >> ImageFunction. There should be a way of making sure that the two
>> >> >> >> branches are initiated from the same image source, or this could be a
>> >> >> >> source of error. Simply encapsulating this in a class takes away the
>> >> >> >> freedom of defining a general problem away from the user.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Just a thought:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Would it help to let GenericImage also be a dolfin::Mesh? Then in
>> >> >> > ITKImage you copy paste the algorithm for creating a
>> >> >> > UnitCube/UnitSquare/Rectange/Box (the algorithms are actually not very
>> >> >> > large).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I understand that implemented algorithms are short, but maybe it's not
>> >> >> a good practice to copy/paste the code (even if it's a short code). We
>> >> >> should think of a more creative way of doing this.
>> >> >
>> >> > Sure ;)
>> >> >
>> >> > One alternative could be to inherit UnitSquare directly but then we need to
>> >> > put the creation algorithm in, e.g., an init function (protected such ;) ).
>> >> > This will then be called in the constructor, and we also need an empty
>> >> > constructor to be called by the inherited mesh, which may or may not make any
>> >> > sense at all.
>> >>
>> >> This looks like something feasible to me. What about having a virtual
>> >> Mesh::Init() called in Mesh() so that the subclasses just have to
>> >> override Init()? Then in the ImageMesh case, the parent Init() should
>> >> be also called and the extra branch in the diagram will disappear.
>> >
>> > It doesn't seem to be a good idea to make the construction of the mesh
>> > optional in subclasses of UnitSquare. Generally, we try to avoid
>> > init() functions (as we've had plenty of them before and it
>> > complicates the design).
>> >
>> > It would be better to do something like this:
>> >
>> >  class ImageMesh : public Mesh
>> >  {
>> >  public:
>> >
>> >    ImageMesh(const Image& image) : Mesh()
>> >    {
>> >      // Compute nx, ny etc
>> >
>> >      // Create unit square mesh and copy it
>> >      UnitSquare mesh(nx, ny);
>> >      *this = mesh;
>> >    }
>> >
>> >  };
>>
>> I did try this before creating ImageToMesh. I guess it needs the right
>> copy constructor as I get this error:
>>
>> error: no match for ‘operator=’ in ‘*(debiosee::ImageMesh*)this = mesh’
>>
>> then, creating the copy constructor seems unnecessary since we have to
>> copy everything that the subclass owns. I also tried downcasting using
>> dynamic_cast, but it didn't work.
>
> The following should work:
>
>  static_cast<Mesh&>(*this) = mesh;
>
> Look at the misc sandbox.

Thanks, I justed tried it in debiosee and it works.

Regarding storing the cell number infomation in ordered meshes, is
this going to be added in dolfin?

-Ali

>
> --
> Anders
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkmkZKgACgkQTuwUCDsYZdFTUwCggrPk74yJ353POkWiAcCqiIue
> JvoAn270eOnoXUkxnTBUWsi5gEaU7san
> =0raM
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> DOLFIN-dev mailing list
> DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
>
>