On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Benjamin Kirk wrote: > http://libmesh.sourceforge.net/doxygen/classMeshCommunication.php > > At one point MeshCommunication actually held data... But no more. Should > we make this a namespace instead? It seems rather silly to implement a > MeshCommunication "object" just to get at its public methods...
Personally, I'd rather move the declaratations of MeshCommunication methods to MeshBase, then move their definitions to UnstructuredMesh (in a new file, "unstructured_mesh_communication.C", perhaps). It would be nice if we could have a communication object/namespace that was really independent of mesh type, but I'm pretty sure that whoever tries to extend MeshBase->CartesianMesh will discover that that's just wishful thinking. ;-) --- Roy ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Libmesh-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
