On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Dmitry Karpeev <karpeev at mcs.anl.gov>wrote:
> How about having a DM-specific function for that designation? >> > DMXXXGetFieldSplits()/DMXXXGetDomainDecompositions(), for example? > For the C interface, maybe configure a named set with DMXxxSet... and tell PCASM to use it. For the options database interface, maybe have the option processed by DMXxx code instead of by PCASM. I don't know, this might be just as bad. > I think that would work, if the implementation defined only a small number > of decompositions. > If instead there is a short grammar defining well-formed strings naming > such decompositions, I'm not sure how to > communicate that to the user, other than in documentation. I have > DMLibMeshGetVars() to return all vars. FieldSplits > can be defined as arbitrary groupings of those. Each split will then > advertise only the vars in the groupings that defines the split. > I still don't know what to do about a nonlinear change of basis. Advertising var names seems reasonable to me. Note that ASM domains are essentially vertex-oriented which is different from element-centered domains (natural for non-overlapping methods). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120526/3ded9a34/attachment.html>
