Discussion has migrated to
https://bitbucket.org/fenics-project/dolfin/issue/263.
Garth
On Thu, 27 Feb, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Martin Sandve Alnæs
<[email protected]> wrote:
The core lines of the issue being fixed are these:
u0 = project( u0, V )
#missing u0.update()
bc = DirichletBC(V, u0, u0_boundary)
In my opinion, _project_ seems to be the one that's missing the
update, not DBC which the pull request tries to add it to.
This seems to be to be a rather fundamental issue cross cutting all
of dolfin which needs to be done consistently. Should the operation
that modifies u0 or the operation that inspects u0 call u0.update()?
In my opinion, as a rule of thumb it has to be the operation that
modifies that should call update.
I.e. in this code only a single update after project is needed, not
one for bc1 and one for bc2:
u0 = project( u0, V )
#missing u0.update()
bc1 = DirichletBC(V, u0, u0_boundary1)
bc2 = DirichletBC(V, u0, u0_boundary2)
And if vectors are modified directly, the user is responsible for
calling update when finished.
Martin
On 27 February 2014 11:29, Martin Sandve Alnæs <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hidden behind a pull request there was a discussion now about the
right place to insert function.update() calls.
https://bitbucket.org/fenics-project/dolfin/pull-request/117/fix-issue-263/diff#comment-1317810
I found the discussion to be important so instead of continuing
there I add my 2 cents here:
Requiring the user to call update at the correct places according to
what the dolfin implementation under the hood requires at any
particular time would be a massive blow to usability. How can anyone
be expected to do that correctly without knowing in detail how
dolfin components are implemented?
Martin
_______________________________________________
fenics mailing list
[email protected]
http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
