On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 12:05, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> Well, you are argeeing with me. Publishing an object with AMS is > different than viewing them and so AMS publishing is not a subclass of > PetscViewer it is a separate thing. > 1. I thought AMS was normally allowed to look at it later (because it returned a memory reference). By what mechanism does AMS become synchronous (because it must if you publish a stack variable which will only be valid instantaneously). 2. We could create an "AMS" viewer that, instead of actually reading the published values with a separate process, printed it (or wrote to a file). I need to go use AMS for something so that I can have an intelligent discussion about its implementation/capability. > You mean "change the AMS API"? Godzooks you are asking too much :-( > Reason, this information has to be propagated through all the AMS code > which scares me too much to consider. > Alternative rationale: AMS does not have a big network of dependencies yet so now is the best time to make it just how we eventually want it. Getting hands dirty in AMS (although this may be a somewhat superficial change) would be useful for me anyway. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20110814/e75b7e43/attachment.html>
