On Thu 2008-04-10 12:14, Ola Skavhaug wrote: > To be able to tackle solvers through the Generic* interface, should we > consider having a GenericSolver? Today, a LUSolver has a DefaultLUSolver, a > typedef to either uBlasLUSolver or PETScLUSolver. Not clear to me what the > best solution is...
I've been watching this discussion for a while and it seems to me that the direction this is going is a duplication of the PETSc Mat/KSP/PC abstraction. In my opinion, anything less would become frustrating down the line. Of course, if you don't want to always depend on PETSc, you have to duplicate the abstraction. This can be done in a more C++ native way, but it will end up looking quite similar and being a fair amount of work. It's not clear to me if the reason to avoid a hard PETSc dependence is desire for a stronger direct solver than the default, or that you really don't want users to need to install it. If it's the former, building with Umfpack seems like a decent solution. The power of being able to try out different solvers on the command line is extremely useful in my experience. Jed _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
