dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 08:22:23AM +0100, Marie E. Rognes wrote:
> On 02/22/2011 08:35 PM, Anders Logg wrote:
> >On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:32:07AM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>On 22/02/11 11:07, Anders Logg wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 08:52:55AM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>On 22/02/11 07:51, Anders Logg wrote:
> >>>>>I'd like to implement this blueprint for 0.9.10:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>https://blueprints.launchpad.net/dolfin/+spec/attach-subdomains-to-form
> >>>>>
> >>>>>In addition, I'd like to remove the cell_domains,
> >>>>>exterior_facet_domains and interior_facet_domains arguments from the
> >>>>>assembler. It seems overkill to have three different ways to specify
> >>>>>the domains and the logic becomes complex for handling which data
> >>>>>overrides if many are specified. We could also remove these arguments
> >>>>>from VariationalProblem.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>We would then have two ways to specify the subdomains:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>1. As part of the Mesh (MeshData)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>2. As part of the form
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The SystemAssembler would then need to rely on (1).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Comments and objections?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>What's the advantage of having two methods? Why not just have one?
> >>>
> >>>It's natural to specify the subdomains as part of the mesh, but it's
> >>>also natural to specify them as part of the form if one has say a and
> >>>L and they should be assembled on the same mesh but partition the
> >>>domain differently into subdomains.
> >>>
> >>
> >>OK.
> >
> >I will implement this then.
> >
>
> Looking forward to this... Is there an ETA ;-) ?

Yes: https://launchpad.net/dolfin/+milestone/0.9.11

--
Anders