dolfin team mailing list archive

[Johan Hake <hake@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Friday 20 March 2009 20:29:16 Anders Logg wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 03:39:03PM +0100, Johan Hake wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > Soon it will be time to shift from ffc.Foo in PyDOLFIN to ufl.Foo. This
> > should(!?) be quite straight forward to do.
> >
> > Then the only ffc releated code in PyDOLFIN would be the jit call in
> > dolfin.jit.py
> >
> > Would it be a point to continue the migration of the whole jit
> > compilation thing to ufc instead of beeing a part of the form compiler?
> >
> > The form compiler could provide a python interface that ufc.jit could
> > use. For example:
> >
> >   FC.signature(ufl_form, options = None)
> >   FC.compile_form(ufl_form, options = None)
> >
> > where FC is the form compiler. Based on these two functions ufc will
> > return a form from the cache or call the FC.compile_form to produce
> > code,compile the extension module and return the compiled form.
> >
> > ufc could have a configuration file naming the prefered form compiler and
> > jit could of course also take option "form_compiler" too.
> >
> > Does this make sense? Are the above functions enough?
> >
> > If we do this PyDOLFIN is clean from dependencies to a certain form
> > compiler.
>
> Sounds good to me!

Ok,

I suggest that we get the PyDOLFIN interface up and running with ufl stuff 
when this has stabilized and when this is in place we can migrate to a 
ufc.jit.

It's also good to here if Martin knows if there will be any problems to 
integrate sfc with this approach.

Johan