On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Jed Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
And PETSc supports umfpack, --download-unfpack. Matt > Jed > _______________________________________________ > DOLFIN-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev -- 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 _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
