itaps-parallel definition for 'neighbors of a part'

[Vitus Leung]

In both, REGION could be replaced by EDGE.  Overall, I like the first
one better.  It could be that I just read that one first.

Vitus

On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 15:02 -0700, Onkar Sahni wrote:
> Tim and I have come with two definitions for 'neighbors of a part' (the
> definitions imply same thing but wordings in each are different). Please
> provide us your feedback and we can choose one (or keep both).
> 
> Two (or more) parts are neighbors, if at least one object in each of the
> parts (i.e., the objects in the partition owned by each part) have a
> common lower- or higher-dimensional adjacent entity of specified type(s).
> (Common higher-dimensional adjacent entity of type REGION will satisfy
> need for vertex-based partition, where mesh vertices are
> partition-objects, used in mesh smoothing).
> 
> OR
> 
> Two (or more)  parts are neighbors, if any entity of specified type(s) at
> least have one adjacent object in each of the parts (i.e., the objects in
> the partition owned by each part). (Again, for a vertex-based partition,
> specified type can be REGION and objects are vertices, so regions that
> have objects (i.e., vertices) on two parts make the parts neighbor to each
> other).
> 
> Thanks,
> Onkar
> 
> >
> > Attached is a revised version of DraftInterface.h, along with the CVS
> diff
> > from the previous version you saw.
> >
> > In going through everyone's reviews, I saw that confusion remains regarding
> > copies and their management.  In this week's phone conf, we'll discuss
> the
> > communication functions (sendEntArrToPartsPar/recvEntArrFromPartsPar) as
> well as any function with Copy/Copies and Owned in its name.
> >
> > There are many other parts of the interface marked "TODO".  Let's
> discuss
> > them over email to reach consensus on as many as possible before using
> phone
> > time for them.
> >
> > I have not received the new part-neighbor definition yet, so the old one is
> > still in the document.
> >
> > Finally, I tried to address all comments in the reviews, but if there is
> a
> > point that I missed or didn't address to your satisfaction, please let
> me
> > know.
> >
> > Thanks for your contributions!
> > Karen
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
>