| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
Garth N. Wells wrote:
Anders Logg wrote:On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:39:26AM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote:Garth N. Wells wrote:Anders Logg wrote:On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 05:42:26PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:Anders Logg wrote:On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 04:57:05PM +0100, Anders Logg wrote:On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 04:23:51PM +0100, Marie Rognes wrote:I'm interesting in accessing the vector of a Function after mesh-refinement. At the moment, I'm getting: RuntimeError: *** Error: You are attempting to access a non-const vector from a sub-Function. Is this inevitable, a bug or a trigger-happy error message? from dolfin import * mesh = UnitSquare(2,2) V = FunctionSpace(mesh, "CG", 1) u = Function(V) mesh.refine() u.vector()Looks like a bug. The function is not being refined but the mesh, the dofmap and the functionspace is refined. Might be related to the recent work on refinement.It should be fixed now. Someone had commented out register_object in the Function constructor.I'm not too keen on all this magic. Harish I and have an adaptive solver in which the function spaces are declared inside a loop and it's slowly leaking memory, but I can't figure out why. 'Magic' makes it really hard to figure out what's going on.That's unfortunate. But the magic is necessary if we should allow meshes to be refined. The other option would be to remove mesh.refine() and always rely on new_mesh = refine(mesh) And then explicitly create the new function spaces and project the functions.This is what we're doing. GarthI'm not sure which implications that would have fore Marie's code. Marie?I'm pretty keen on the magic, but can survive without it.I also like the magic, but AdaptiveObjects.cpp is complex and fragile so it would be good to remove it.What about a free-function or a like 'adapt', or a class with static member functions, that takes multiple arguments? It could be passed a MeshFunction of cells to refine/coarsen, and from the Python side you could even pass the function with which you want to adapt the mesh. We could also keep AdaptiveObjects, but have users register functions manually. Garth
Just another quick thought. What about using the signal/slot technology provided by boost: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_42_0/doc/html/signals.html At least experience with the corresponding QT signal/slot technologyshows that it really facilitates the implementation of observer patterns (which we probably want to use here?) That way we don't have to use the "one class cares for all dependencies" approach, instead a member function refine in the mesh class could send put a signal, and each object, which has a slot coupled to that signal, could react in the class specific manner.
That might help to reduce the complexity and the class interactions as minimal as possible. But I had just a quick look in the AdaptiveObjects class and not aware of all the dirty details :)
If the automagic updating of function spaces etc is removed. then mesh.refine() should definitely be disabled.Yes, definitely. But let's keep AdaptiveObjects until we have ported our code to new_mesh = refine(mesh) -- Anders_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : dolfin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
