dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:49:54AM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>
>
> On 10/02/11 10:24, Marie E. Rognes wrote:
> > On 02/10/2011 12:03 AM, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >>
> >> On 09/02/11 22:43, Anders Logg wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 10:11:40AM -0800, Johan Hake wrote:
> >>>> Hello!
> >>>>
> >>>> I am pretty sure the reason the Macbot still complains (mesh unit test) is
> >>>> that refine is broken for SWIG 2.0.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think it is some premature destruction of a refined mesh. I would suggest we
> >>>> implement a full shared_ptr version of the interface to get around this
> >>>> problem. I have no clue of why it works for SWIG 1.3.40. Probably because a
> >>>> faulty implementation.
> >>>>
> >>>> I also suggest more developers upgrade to SWIG 2.0.1 and maybe one of the
> >>>> linux build bots two? If it is only the Macbot that uses SWIG 2.0 it is easily
> >>>> to think it is some Mac specific error.
> >>>>
> >>>> Johan
> >>> I plan to merge with main tomorrow if my buildbot is green. Then Marie
> >>> also needs to merge (we have both touched refine.h/cpp). Then we can
> >>> sort out the shared_ptrs.
> >>>
> >> I really don't get the approach to hierarchies. Mesh refinement was
> >> simple, and now something simple has become complex (with bugs that are
> >> hard to track down because of the introduced complexity).
> >>
> >
> > I really do get the approach to hierarchies. Mesh refinement was and is
> > simple, but dealing with the consequences of mesh refinement has never
> > been. A couple of different designs regarding the refinement of function
> > spaces, functions, forms etc have been tested over the last year. I (and
> > the AdaptiveSolver) find the current Hierarchical design transparent,
> > elegant, and very much to the point.
> >
>
> What is the function names are changed to 'adapt' (or similar)? 'refine'
> is not very accurate because a mesh, etc, could well be refined or
> coarsened, or nodes could just be relocated.
>
> With 'adapt', the purpose would be clear and it would sit nicely in the
> directory 'adaptivity'.
>
> In mesh, we can keep refine as it was, and at some point add coarsen and
> a mixture of refinement and coarsen.

Yes, 'adapt' sounds like a more suitable name and 'refine' could be
reserved for meshes.

We could have adapt(mesh) and refine(mesh). Only the former would
touch the hierarchy. Does that sound good?

--
Anders