dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 09:06:16AM +0200, Johan Hake wrote:
> On Friday 08 May 2009 08:49:59 Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > Anders Logg wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 08:12:35AM +0200, Johan Hake wrote:
> > >> On Thursday 07 May 2009 23:16:54 Anders Logg wrote:
> > >>> On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 11:05:49PM +0200, Johan Hake wrote:
> > >>>> On Thursday 07 May 2009 18:54:04 Anders Logg wrote:
> > >>>>> I've added some of the requested features to the parameter system,
> > >>>>> some pushed and some sitting here in a local repository. But the
> > >>>>> current design makes it a pain to add new features. A single change
> > >>>>> will make it necessary to add a function in at least 5 different
> > >>>>> classes.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> So I'm thinking of reimplementing and simplifying the parameter
> > >>>>> system. I think I know how to make it simpler.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> But before I do that, does anyone have opinions on the
> > >>>>> design/implementation? Is there any third-party library that we
> > >>>>> could/should use (maybe something in boost)?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It would be nice to have something that easely could be transferable
> > >>>> to Python.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Having a base class let say Parameterized and then let all inherit
> > >>>> this to be able to define parameters will not work well for the
> > >>>> shared_ptr interface we have. We have problems with the Variable
> > >>>> class, which does not work for the derived shared_ptr classes e.g.
> > >>>> Function. I would rather have classes that have a parameter rather
> > >>>> than beeing.
> > >>>
> > >>> How would that work? Inheritance now provides get/set functions for
> > >>> subclasses making it possible to do
> > >>>
> > >>>   solver.set("tolerance", 0.1);
> > >>
> > >> Not sure what you ask for here. I know of Parametrized and I agree that
> > >> the above syntax is nice. But I prefer to keep the parameters in its own
> > >> object and just operate on that. These can then be collected into one
> > >> "dict/map" and then form the parameters of an application. This is also
> > >> easier to wrap to python.
> > >>
> > >> The shared_ptr argument might not be so relevant as the potential
> > >> parametrized classes may not be declared as shared_ptr classes in the
> > >> swig interface anyway. However if that will be the case we must declare
> > >> Parametrized as a shared_ptr class in swig and then we must declare all
> > >> Parametrized sub classes as shared_ptr...
> > >>
> > >>>> Also by defining a parameter(list/dict) class which can be accessed as
> > >>>> a dict let us make the transition to python smoother.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>    ParameterDict p = solver.default_params();
> > >>>>    p["abs_tol"] = 1e-9;
> > >>>
> > >>> It would need to be
> > >>>
> > >>>     ParameterDict& p = solver.default_params();
> > >>
> > >> Sure :P
> > >>
> > >>> and I'd suggest naming it Parameters:
> > >>>
> > >>>     Parameters& p = solver.parameters();
> > >>
> > >> Fine.
> > >>
> > >>>> By defining some templated check classes we could controll the
> > >>>> assignment. In the Solver:
> > >>>>    ...
> > >>>>    ParameterDict& default_params(){
> > >>>>       if (!_par)
> > >>>>       {
> > >>>>          _par = new ParameterDict();
> > >>>>          _par->add_param("abs_tol",new RangeCheck<double>(1e-15,0,1));
> > >>>>          vector<string> * allowed_prec = new Vector<string>();
> > >>>>          allowed_prec->push_back("ilu");
> > >>>>          allowed_prec->push_back("amg");
> > >>>>          allowed_prec->push_back("jacobi");
> > >>>>          _par->add_param("prec",new
> > >>>> OptionCheck<string>("ilu"),allowed_prec));
> > >>>> _par->add_param("nonsense","jada"); // No checks
> > >>>>       }
> > >>>>    }
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Well, I admit that the above code is not beautiful, and others can
> > >>>> probably make it cleaner and spot errors. The point is that RangeCheck
> > >>>> and OptionCheck can be derived from a ParCheck class that overloads
> > >>>> the operator=(). This will just call a private set function which is
> > >>>> defined in the derived classes, and which do the check.
> > >>>
> > >>> I think we can also solve this without excessive templating... ;-)
> > >>
> > >> Good!
> > >>
> > >>>> The to and from file can be implemented in the ParameterDict body. The
> > >>>> checks do not have to be written or read, as a ParameterDict can only
> > >>>> read in allready predefined parameters, and the check will be done
> > >>>> when the file is read.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The option parser ability can also be implemented in ParameterDict
> > >>>> using boost or other libraries, based on the registered parameters.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have implemented something like this in Python, and the above is a
> > >>>> try to scetch something similare in c++.
> > >>>
> > >>> What exactly is needed from the Python side? I think I can make a
> > >>> fairly simple implementation of this in C++ using a minimal amount of
> > >>> templates with simple syntax.
> > >>
> > >> Using operator[] to get and set parameters can straightforwardly be
> > >> mapped to python, and we can then also implement the map/dict protocol
> > >> on top of that. Other get and set methods can also be used, however set
> > >> is a built in type in Python and not a good alternative.
> > >>
> > >>> Is the main difference that instead of inheriting Parametrized, a
> > >>> subclass needs to implement a method named parameters() which returns
> > >>> the parameter "dictionary"?
> > >>
> > >> Yes.
> > >
> > > ok, I'll try this. I'll add a sketch of a new class using as much of
> > > po as seems reasonable and then you could have a look before I proceed.
> >
> > Will there be just one parameter dictionary, or will objects have their
> > own? I'm thinking of cases like when a program uses two Krylov solvers
> > but may use different tolerances for each one.
> 
> You mean one parameter dictionary per class or one per instance? I have the 
> same distinction in a Python application. Some places I need one per instance 
> and other places it is more convinient to have one per class.

One per instance. But there could be a default Parameter database for
"Krylov solver" which is used if an option is not set for a specific
instance.

-- 
Anders

> In python I have a way to controll this dynamically. Not sure how this could 
> be done in c++. 
> 
> Johan
> 
> > Garth
> >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > DOLFIN-dev mailing list
> > > DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > DOLFIN-dev mailing list
> > DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DOLFIN-dev mailing list
> DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature