On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 11:31:03AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote:
> On Tuesday September 6 2011 11:04:23 Anders Logg wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 05:45:33PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > > On 6 September 2011 17:31, Johan Hake <johan.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Monday September 5 2011 00:09:58 Anders Logg wrote:
> > > >> On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 11:23:04PM -0700, Johan Hake wrote:
> > > >> > On Friday September 2 2011 23:19:22 Anders Logg wrote:
> > > >> > > On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 02:35:57PM -0700, Johan Hake wrote:
> > > >> > > > What is the different between a MeshMarker and a MeshFunction?
> > > >> > > > Is MeshMarker a MeshFunction but instead of storing the values
> > > >> > > > in line with its global entity index it stores it wrt the
> > > >> > > > global cell entity index together with its local entity index?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Yes, that and values don't need to be stored on the entire mesh,
> > > >> > > only for a subset, so you can mark just 3 facets without needing
> > > >> > > to store markers for a million facets.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ok, I will see what I can do.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks!
> > > >>
> > > >> > > Copy paste from the MeshMarker docstring:
> > > >> > > /// The MeshMarkers class can be used to store data associated
> > > >> > > with /// a subset of the entities of a mesh of a given
> > > >> > > topological /// dimension. It differs from the MeshFunction class
> > > >> > > in two ways. /// First, data does not need to be associated with
> > > >> > > all entities /// (only a subset). Second, data is associated with
> > > >> > > entities /// through the corresponding cell index and local
> > > >> > > entity number /// (relative to the cell), not by global entity
> > > >> > > index, which means /// that data may be stored robustly to file.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > Also, will this take over for the way we use MeshFunctions in
> > > >> > > > the assembler, or will a MeshFunction be generated by a
> > > >> > > > MeshMarker before assemble gets called?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I think we will do that as a first step (convert from MeshMarker
> > > >> > > to MeshFunction) since then we don't need to touch the assembler.
> > > >> > > Then later we can think about using MeshMarkers directly.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Ok.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > I think I also get confused with the naming here. If my
> > > >> > > > explaination of what MeshMarker is doing is correct, a
> > > >> > > > MeshMarker and a MeshFunction are essentially doing the same
> > > >> > > > thing. What differs is the way the data is stored. This is not
> > > >> > > > reflected in the naming of the classes
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > It was the best I could come up with. Feel free to suggest
> > > >> > > something else. SubsetMeshFunction would also be confusing since
> > > >> > > it's not really a MeshFunction.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Either way, I expect the MeshMarkers class to be used mostly
> > > >> > > internally by the MeshDomains class.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Ok.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Not sure these are better, but they might reflect the difference
> > > >> > between this guy and a MeshFunction in a slightly more intuitive
> > > >> > way.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > MeshEntityFunction, LocalMeshEntityFunction, LocalMeshFunction,
> > > >> > SubMeshFunction
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm not sure those are much better, and I don't think it would be
> > > >> correct to call them something containing "Function" since they are
> > > >> not really functions. With a MeshFunction, one can input x (a mesh
> > > >> entity) and get y = f(x) (the value of the MeshFunction at that
> > > >> entity). That's not possible with MeshMarkers; they are just a
> > > >> collection of markers, not really a function since the value is only
> > > >> defined on a subset and one would need to loop through the list of
> > > >> values to get the value at any entity where the value is actually
> > > >> defined.
> > > >
> > > > What with MeshValueCollection? As it is a templated class I do not
> > > > think Marker is an appropriated name.
> > >
> > > Agree.
> > >
> > > > 'Collection' says that the class is not
> > > > defined over the whole Mesh.
> >
> > I don't see what the templating has to do with the name "markers" but
> > MeshValueCollection sounds good.
> >
> > > > Two questions:
> > > >
> > > > How can the following code work:
> > > >
> > > > // Get marker data
> > > > const std::vector<uint>& marker = _markers[i];
> > > > const uint cell_index = marker[0];
> > > > const uint local_entity = marker[1];
> > > > const T marker_value = marker[2];
> > > >
> > > > when _markers is declared as:
> > > >
> > > > // The markers
> > > > std::vector<std::pair<std::pair<uint, uint>, T> > _markers;
> >
> > The above code doesn't work. I suspect the code hasn't yet been
> > instantiated so it wasn't detected by the compiler.
> >
> > The markers need to be accessed as follows (from XMLMeshMarkers.h):
> >
> > for (uint i = 0; i < mesh_markers.size(); ++i)
> > {
> > pugi::xml_node entity_node = mf_node.append_child("marker");
> > const std::pair<std::pair<uint, uint>, T>& marker =
> > mesh_markers.get_marker(i);
> > entity_node.append_attribute("cell_index") = marker.first.first;
> > entity_node.append_attribute("local_entity") = marker.first.second;
> > entity_node.append_attribute("marker_value") = marker.second;
> > }
> >
> > > The above also permits multiple entries. Perhaps we want
> > >
> > > boost::unordered_map<std::pair<std::pair<uint, uint>, T> > _markers;
> >
> > Yes, maybe but I'm not sure what the cost would be for the lookup on
> > each cell during assembly.
> >
> > > > What is the logic behind:
> > > >
> > > > // Set all value of mesh function to maximum value (not all will
> > > > // be set) by markers below
> > > > mesh_function.set_all(maxval);
> > > >
> > > > Isn't it more natural to initiate the values to zero? Also it makes no
> > > > sense in conjunction with boundary markers. Then all boundary faces
> > > > gets marked with the largest marker value. I cannot see how that could
> > > > be correct.
> > >
> > > I don't get ' mesh_function.set_all(maxval);' or the code comment.
> >
> > The point is that one should be able to define a form with domains say
> > dx(0), dx(1) and dx(2) and then have a mesh file that marks a subset
> > of the cells with '0', '1' and '2'.
> >
> > Then the conversion to MeshFunction inserts '3' for all other
> > (unmarked) cells. This allows a user to specify only the interesting
> > cells and no need to mark the rest with -1 or None or similar.
>
> That would make sense if the code would be:
>
> mesh_function.set_all(maxval+1);
Yes, that is the intention! Thanks for proofreading my code before
I've even had a chance to test it. :-)
--
Anders
> Johan
>
> > > >> So MeshMarkers may not be that bad. I'm starting to get used to
> > > >> it... :-)
> > > >
> > > > That's what worries me :)
> > >
> > > Me too (worried, that is).
> >
> > Don't worry.
> >
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
Post to : dolfin@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
