itaps-parallel New requirements proposed for iMeshP: bootcamp discussion

[Mark Beall]

Karen,

What you wrote brought up a question here that we haven't been able to  
answer cleanly. It's a pretty basic question that probably should have  
come up before, but it's possible that we have been assuming things  
based how we have interpreted what we have read, so here's the question:

What are the definitions of "mesh instance" and "mesh" for iMesh? More  
specifically, I can infer what the definition of a "mesh instance" is  
from the API and other documentation (although I think a precise  
definition would be nice), but it's not clear what the definition of a  
"mesh" is supposed to be.

Also, as a side question related to function naming, why is the  
function that creates a mesh instance named iMesh_newMesh?

mark


> In a nutshell, we decided that a "mesh instance" is in effect a "mesh
> database" that may contain one or more actual meshes.  As such, it  
> makes
> most sense to have one database per implementation per process.
> I apologize for not reviewing the mailing list and my notes before
> the bootcamp.
>
> [Off on a tangent:  A comment was made in the thread that the name  
> "mesh
> instance" is confusing, as it implies an instantiation of a single  
> mesh,
> and I still agree with that comment, preferring "mesh database."
> But we are NOT arguing this point here, and I am NOT proposing to
> change the name, so do NOT reply about this short vent.
> There will be plenty more to reply about below.  :)]


On May 4, 2010, at 11:07 AM, Devine, Karen D wrote:

>
> Attached is a write-up of the "compromise" solution I promised after  
> our
> discussion at bootcamp.   I'm sorry it is late; I wrote it last week  
> but
> forgot to mail it out.
>
> Please read and consider it; then reply with your thoughts.  Thanks!
>
> Karen
>
> <compromise.txt>