fenics team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:46:11PM +0200, Johan Jansson wrote:
> Anders Logg wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 11:14:50PM +0200, Johan Hoffman wrote:
> >   
> >> Yes, this is natural. I am all in favour of including Unicorn among the
> >> fenics-apps, as you describe.
> >>     
> >
> > The only difference would then be that the repository for Unicorn is
> > under
> >
> >   fenics.org/hg/unicorn
> >
> > instead of
> >
> >   fenics.org/apps/unicorn
> >
> >   
> >> But at the same time, I also think it is
> >> important to keep Unicorn as a FEniCS project in itself, since it is the
> >> only project aiming at realizing the FEniCS vision in the direction of
> >> mathematical modeling (turbulent/laminar compressible/incompressible flow,
> >> fsi, etc. as one solver).
> >>
> >> /Johan
> >>     
> >
> > I don't agree. I also want to do all those things, but as part of DOLFIN.
> >
> >   
> Hi!
> 
> I'm very positive about FEniCS Apps, and I think that Unicorn should be 
> included as well.

Good. Note that being part of FEniCS Apps is not the same thing as not
being a project. Everything inq FEniCS Apps is a project. The point as
I see it is to collect application-oriented projects (applications)
and put up an infrastructure that allows us to add new projects at
high speed with minimal resistance. If Unicorn is placed under FEniCS
Apps, it would still be a project, still have a web page, still have
its own repository etc, just like DOLFIN-grade2 and FEniCS Plasticity.

> In light of this discussion, if you want to develop a solver for 
> compressible/incompressible flow, shouldn't that be included in FEniCS 
> Apps, or? Why would that fit into the DOLFIN project?
> 
>   Johan

Yes, it should be in FEniCS Apps (the solver) but as much as possible
of common infrastructure (mesh algorithms etc) should be in DOLFIN.

-- 
Anders

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature