dolfin team mailing list archive

[Kent Andre <kent-and@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 13:58 +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> 
> On 31/05/10 13:50, Anders Logg wrote:
> > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 01:17:15PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >> At the moment, a linear solver is not associated with a particular
> >> matrix. This makes it awkward and dangerous to re-use
> >> preconditioners, factorisations, etc. I suggest that we change the
> >> interface of the linear solver classes to accept a matrix at
> >> construction, and that the solvers maintain a (smart) pointer to the
> >> matrix. Opinions?

Agree that something should be done with the linear solver interface. 


> >
> > It feels awkward to associate a linear solver with a specific system.
> >
> 
> Why is that? All our la backends do it. It seems natural to me since 
> solving a linear system involves a number of data structures which are 
> specific to the matrix.
> 
> Garth
> 
> > One option would be to have both Problem and Solver classes for linear
> > systems.

Should the Problem then include the linear system, preconditioner and
factorized matrices ?

Kent



> >
> > This is also related to the following blueprint that addresses the
> > issue of the inconsistency between the interfaces for linear systems
> > and variational problems:
> >
> >    https://blueprints.launchpad.net/dolfin/+spec/solver-interfaces
> >
> > --
> > Anders
> 



> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
> Post to     : dolfin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp