fenics team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 11:19:08AM +0200, Johan Hoffman wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 11:03:30AM +0200, Johan Hoffman wrote:
> >> > I don't mind cG(1), but this sounds like dolfin-modules with a
> >> > restriction (only cG(1) + stabilization allowed). Why not have a
> >> > repository dolfin-modules that may include also other modules?
> >>
> >> Think of it more as the automation of modelling in the FEniCS visison.
> >> The
> >> basis being a simple and general method (such as cG(1) with adaptivity).
> >> The generality here is with respect to possible applications, not to the
> >> number of numerical methods covered.
> >>
> >> > If not, then where should we put those modules? As a separate project
> >> > (dolfin-modules-but-not-cg1-with-stabilization) or should we have
> >> > a separate project for each module?
> >>
> >> Since it does not seem that anyone is interested in maintaining a
> >> general
> >> collection of solvers,
> >
> > I was hoping one of you would be willing to maintain the modules, not
> > just your own module.
> 
> Apart from our modules there are mainly a few simple modules for Poisson
> and Heat equation, that rather should be demos in Dolfin, together with
> Garths plasticity solver. And I have not got any indication that
> publication of many more modules is under way.
> 
> Also, I think we were of the opinion that such dolfin_modules should be
> rather clean, which will not be the case of these modules where still a
> lot of work is going on.
> 
> >> I think the best way is to do as we discussed on the dolfin-dev list
> >> to have a dolfin-modules web-page under Dolfin with links to modules
> >> by individual developers or homepages of groups that publish Dolfin
> >> modules. This is important for visibility of Dolfin I think.
> >>
> >> /Johan
> >
> > Will your module then be one of those modules or will it be something
> > different?
> 
> Of course, it will be one of these modules. So from the Dolfin point of
> view this will be just another set of solvers, but it will also be a
> project towards automation of modelling, with feedback into Dolfin of
> general functionality.
> 
> If successful I expect it to boost interest for Dolfin. A variant to make
> the connection more clear is to use the name "Dolfin Genereal Galerkin
> solver", but I think "FEniCS" may be better since automation of modelling
> is a general goal.
> 
> /Johan

Yes, boosting interest is good, but why can't the two be combined? I
would prefer a single project dolfin-modules containing a collection
of DOLFIN solvers, including your solvers and others.

/Anders