Colleagues of mine are working in shape optimization with FEniCS, where you solve a PDE on a domain Omega1, and use the solution to define a new domain Omega2 on which the same PDE is solved (and so forth). A built-in mesh generator is essential in this workflow.
--Nico On Oct 17, 2013 3:06 PM, "Garth N. Wells" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2013-10-17 06:42, Anders Logg wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 08:48:31PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: >> >>> On 2013-10-16 20:17, Anders Logg wrote: >>> >On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 01:00:08PM +0100, Chris Richardson wrote: >>> >>On 16/10/2013 09:25, Garth N. Wells wrote: >>> >>>Does anyone have an opinion on keeping or removing CGAL from DOLFIN? >>> >>>Below are some pros and cons: >>> >>> >>> >>>- CGAL makes DOLFIN slow to build and builds use a lot of memory. >>> >>>- CGAL is unpredictable in throwing errors (predictable in that it >>> >>>will throw cryptic errors, unpredictable when or with which compiler). >>> >>>- CGAL is difficult to understand and the latest version has very >>> >>>cryptic interface changes. >>> >>>- Almost all of the random DOLFIN buildbot failures are due to CGAL >>> >>>mesh generation failures. >>> >>> >>> >>>+ CGAL provides mesh generation for a variety of simple shape >>> >>>combinations (the DOLFIN interface to CGAL is not rich enough for >>> >>>anything serious). >>> >> >>> >>Agreed. Anyone serious will make their mesh independently, so CGAL >>> >>is really just an annoying toy in this context... (!) >>> > >>> >That may be true, but simple also has a use. >>> > >>> >It's an optional dependency, so why is it a big problem? >>> > >>> >>> (a) the tests keep failing randomly; (b) it breaks with GCC 4.8; and >>> (c) updating to CGAL 3.4 is a cryptic mess. >>> >> >> I think >> >> (a) enable the tests only on one buildbot, the one where we know it >> fails the least >> >> (b) + (c) try to find a replacement backend mesher (or write our own >> mesher) as a long-term solution >> >> > The question to ask is what is the purpose of built-in mesh generation?. I > can only think of teaching. Anything else? > > Writing our own mesh generation would be a huge waste of time. There are > good mesh generators available (netgen, gmsh, etc). > > Garth > > > -- >> Anders >> > ______________________________**_________________ > fenics mailing list > [email protected] > http://fenicsproject.org/**mailman/listinfo/fenics<http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics> >
_______________________________________________ fenics mailing list [email protected] http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
