dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 01:44:53AM +0100, Benjamin Kehlet wrote>    2012/11/6 Anders Logg <[1]logg@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>    On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 09:28:42PM +0100, Johan Hake wrote:
>    > On 11/05/2012 09:47 AM, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>    > > On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Anders Logg <[2]logg@xxxxxxxxx>
>    wrote:
>    > >> On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 05:26:53PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote:
>    > >>
>    > >>>> One option could be to rename mesh classes to UnitSquareMesh,
>    > >>>> UnitCubeMesh, and keep deprecated (sub)classes UnitSquare,
>    UnitCube
>    > >>>> indefinitely to keep backwards compatibility.
>    > >>>>
>    > >>>
>    > >>> No point in renaming if the deprecated names are to be kept
>    indefinitely.
>    > >>>
>    > >>>> In summary, I would like to add the new classes to namespace
>    dolfin
>    > >>>> but I'm looking for opinions on how to best handle naming
>    conflicts.
>    > >>>>
>    > >>>
>    > >>> I'm always in favour of a consistent, meaningful interface over a
>    > >>> sub-optimal interface for the purpose of backward compatibility.
>    > >>
>    > >> So what are our options?
>    > >>
>    > >> The actual name clashes are between Rectangle/Rectangle and
>    Box/Box (+
>    > >> maybe some more that I'm overlooking).
>    > >>
>    > >> We could suffix everything:
>    > >>
>    > >>   RectangleGeometry
>    > >>   RectangleMesh
>    > >>
>    > >> or
>    > >>
>    > >>   RectangleShape
>    > >>   RectangleMesh
>    > >>
>    > >> to keep it shorter.
>    > >>
>    > >> One could argue that the suffix is only nedded for the meshes,
>    since a
>    > >> Rectangle(Geometry) is really a rectangle, whereas the
>    RectangleMesh
>    > >> is not a rectangle; it's a mesh of a rectangle.
>    > >>
>    > >
>    > > I would prefer the suffix only for the meshes, e.g.,
>    > >
>    > >    Rectangle
>    > >    RectangleMesh
>    >
>    > +
>
>      ok. Sounds good to me. Decided then:
>      - Rename mesh classes --> MeshFoo (RectangleMesh, UnitSquareMesh)
>      - Put geometry classes in namespace dolfin as just Foo (Rectangle)
>      - Make UnitSquare and UnitCube subclasses of UnitSquareMesh and
>        UnitCubeMesh and add deprecation warnings to the constructors of
>      the
>        subclasses that they will be removed in the future
>      Benjamin, please fix before merge.
>
>
>    It turns out we have some actual name clashes. Box and Rectangle exist
>    both as mesh and csg classes. The mesh classes could be renamed to
>    BoxMesh and RectangleMesh, but then we can't keep deprecated versions
>    of the old mesh classes.

It's enough to keep the deprecation classes for UnitSquare and
UnitCube. Those are mostly used in demos and tutorials.

Rectangle is used in the book. But I think it is ok to break the
compatibility in that case, but we should make a careful list of
interface changes that break compatibility and announce that list when
make the next release. We can also easily put up a new version of the
book as a PDF with the changed syntax.

I suggest filing a bug report targeted to DOLFIN 1.1 named something
like "Interface changes" where we list all important changes to the
interface. Then we can keep track of those when releasing 1.1.

--
Anders