fenics team mailing list archive

["Johan Hoffman" <jhoffman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> 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
>

I do not understand. What other solvers are you referring to? The solvers
I talk about to constitute our new project is the Navier-Stokes/Euler
solvers (compressible + incompressible, the ALE-FSI solver, and the
elasticity solver. In the list at
www.fenics.org/wiki/DOLFIN_solver_modules, I can only see Stokes, Poisson,
heat eqn. and convection-diffusion, apart from these. Are these the
solvers you refer to? I consider these solvers rather being simple demos,
to either stay in the Dolfin-kernel for demo/test, or to be dropped, not
being part of a solver project for advanced applications.

If the motive of such a dolfin-module project would only be a showcase of
a collection of Dolfin solvers, I think we might as well host a webpage at
the wiki with links to download the solvers from developers together with
info on what version of Dolfin it works for, and couple this to the
gallery. This would serve the purpose and would minimize maintainment
work. And here our new project would also be present for showcasing
Dolfin.

The project I suggest is not just a showcase of Dolfin solvers, it is
aimed at developing solvers for automating/generalizing modelling for
advanced applications in different areas. For starters, our NS-solver for
turbulent flow would fit here as an automated turbulence solver, using one
simple method (G2 including adaptivity) for "all" turbulent flows
(contrary to common practise of using specific turbulence models for
different flows). We are now working on generalizing this solver to
compressible flow and fluid-structure interaction. Thus there would then
be one solver for turbulent fluid-structure interaction, which would
correspond to automated modeling of FSI.

So far we have no FEniCS project on advanced solvers or automation of
modeling, so this project would fill that gap, and would not interfere
with any other FEniCS project as far as I can see.

If the name is disturbing, signaling exclusivity, we can use another name,
not containing FEniCS or Dolfin. If then someone else want to publish an
advanced solver project at FEniCS that is of course also very welcome. So
far I have heard nothing about such a project.

/Johan