[petsc-dev] DMCartesian vs DMMesh?

[Matthew Knepley]

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

>
>   What is the relationship between DMCartesian and DMMesh?
>

Somewhat, but only in the implementation, which is not that important.


>   Should DMCartesian be removed?
>

I will get rid of it, when I have the replacement done. What I want here is
a Cartesian topology that allows arbitrary dof layout. DMCartesian almost
does this in any dimension, but cannot do edges and faces correctly since
I could not figure out the gray code for this.

Note, that this is not trivial with DMDA, because

  1) The communication code would have to be fixed

  2) It is not easy (ugly) to construct an FEM iteration

  3) It also does nto know about edges and faces


>   Also since Mesh is a generic word but DMMesh is built on Sieve should
> DMMesh be renamed to DMSieve?


I don't like that, because no one will understand what we are talking
about. DMMesh makes sense. I might be
alright with DMUnstructuredMesh, but that is overkill.

   Matt


>
>   Barry
>

-- 
What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
experiments lead.
-- Norbert Wiener
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20111114/1c21db65/attachment.html>