On 28 January 2014 22:06, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 08:33:38PM +0100, Johan Hake wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Martin Sandve Alnæs <[email protected] > > > wrote: > > > > > > What if we move ufc.h to dolfin? Keeping the ufcutils module in ffc. Then > > we can maybe write a test that checks if a given ffc generates ufc code > > that implements the ufc interface of a given dolfin. > > > > > > Sounds like a good idea! Then we could incorporate the CMake configure process > > into DOLFIN CMake.
Can we please keep this idea out of the loop: > > We have also loosely talked about removing UFC and > > eventually generate DOLFIN code, which resonates with moving UFC to DOLFIN. to be absolutely clear: Code generation MUST be targeted to a defined interface. That doesn't change if ufc.h is moved to dolfin. > I am not convinced this is a good idea: Now I don't know if Anders is answering "moving ufc.h" or "generating dolfin code" so I'm confused. > + Only DOLFIN uses ufc.h anyway > + Simplifies build system(s) Yes and yes. > + More flexibility when changing the code generation interface I don't see how moving ufc.h changes flexibility. Changes to ufc.h must be done in concert with changes to calls in dolfin, changes in the ufc_utils code snippets, and changes in ffc. All these stay the same, things are just moved around. > - No clear versioning that tells us which interface FFC and DOLFIN > talk through We have no clear versioning today. If dolfin contains ufc.h and ffc contains ufc_utils, we can make an automated versioning check to see if they are compatible. > - UFC was once introduced to solve a problem we had which was that > changes were often made to both FFC and DOLFIN and users needed > to know which version matched. I don't see how moving ufc.h to dolfin makes that issue any worse? Martin
_______________________________________________ fenics mailing list [email protected] http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
