itaps-parallel Two options from today's iMeshP phone conference

[Saurabh Tendulkar]

On 07/16/10 20:00, Carl Ollivier-Gooch wrote:
> On 10-07-16 04:21 PM, Devine, Karen D wrote:
>>
>> A. Change the iMesh_createEnt function to include an entity set handle
>> argument PH. For serial applications, PH would be the root set; that is,
>> entities are added only to the root set. For parallel applications, PH
>> would be a part handle; the created entity would be added to the part
>> identified by the part handle. Since iMesh_createEnt is an iMesh function
>> (not an iMeshP function), we would use entity set handle as the argument
>> type, so that serial users would not have to include iMeshP.h nor link with
>> iMeshP. This option was generally accepted by Carl, Simmetrix, Sandia and
>> RPI. Tim is in favor of adding the argument, but does not like the
>> restriction of the handle to be either the root set or a part handle. My
>> fear in allowing arbitrary entity set handles to be used is as follows: if
>> a service uses the entity set handle to, say, add entities to a boundary
>> condition set, that service could not be used in parallel, as its
>> iMesh_createEnt calls would not add the entities to a part.
>>
>> B. Add a new iMeshP function iMeshP_createEnt that takes as input a part
>> handle. Parallel services would need to use iMeshP_createEnt to add
>> entities, include iMeshP.h, and link with an iMeshP library; iMesh_createEnt
>> would return an error. Serial services would continue to use
>> iMesh_createEnt. This option is more explicit than option A, but requires
>> more work on the user's part if the user wants code to work both with and
>> without iMeshP.

I think for A, we proposed that the argument be NULL in case of serial. If we 
want no restriction in iMesh, then maybe we can instead pass an array of entity 
sets to iMesh_createEnt, and then in iMeshP stipulate that one of them has to be 
a part.

>> One point we didn't discuss but, perhaps, should have was when and how
>> entity ownership should be assigned. The proposed changes add entities to
>> parts, but do not address determining the ownership or copy-status of an
>> entity. I am not sure where these issues should most appropriately be
>> resolved; can they be postponed until iMeshP_syncPartitionAll?
>
> I had assumed that we were talking about setting ownership, since that's the
> real sticking point: entities that don't have an owner can't be modified (as I
> interpret the current spec).
>
> Carl

Actually, no, we create different entities (ie. pointers) on different parts on 
the part boundary but only one part has the right to modify. The part is not 
modifying the entity in the _create function.

saurabh