On Mar 10, 2016, at 1:37 PM, Paul T. Bauman
mailto:ptbau...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Basic/Advanced isn't bad actually.
I don't like this, I still much prefer "Replicated/Distributed".
Replicated/Distributed indicates the mesh is being replicated/distributed
pretty clearly, I think.
Yep, and I agr
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:31 PM, John Peterson wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Derek Gaston wrote:
>
>> I do really think the classes should be renamed. Coming from the outside
>> I would totally think that I need to use SerialMesh when running in serial
>> and ParallelMesh when
I'm an AdvancedUser. I went to College such and such. I think I should use
AdvancedMesh!
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:31 PM John Peterson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Derek Gaston wrote:
>
>> I do really think the classes should be renamed. Coming from the outside
>> I would totall
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Derek Gaston wrote:
> I do really think the classes should be renamed. Coming from the outside
> I would totally think that I need to use SerialMesh when running in serial
> and ParallelMesh when running in parallel. No amount of documentation
> could stop me f
I do really think the classes should be renamed. Coming from the outside I
would totally think that I need to use SerialMesh when running in serial
and ParallelMesh when running in parallel. No amount of documentation
could stop me from trying it that way first ;-)
I do somewhat agree with your
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Cody Permann
wrote:
> "DistributedMesh" is good, but it might still have some of the same
> problems we encounter with the name "ParallelMesh": People might think. "Oh,
> I want distributed, I'm running on a distributed computer, or I'm running
> in distributed m
"DistributedMesh" is good, but it might still have some of the same
problems we encounter with the name "ParallelMesh": People might think. "Oh,
I want distributed, I'm running on a distributed computer, or I'm running
in distributed memory...".
Perhaps half of the battle is really improving the d
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:07 AM Derek Gaston wrote:
> Backwards compatibility is trivial... a typedef will work...
>
> lol... you've been watching too much Walking Dead!
>
> Any other suggestions?
>
> SerialMesh -> MemoryWastingMesh
> +1
> ParallelMesh -> TimeWastingMesh
> +1
> ?
>
> Those reall
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:17 AM, David Knezevic wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Paul T. Bauman
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Roy Stogner
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I like DistributedMesh and ReplicatedMesh.
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>
> +1
>
+1 DistributedMesh, I searched fo
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Paul T. Bauman wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Roy Stogner
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I like DistributedMesh and ReplicatedMesh.
>
>
> +1
>
+1
--
Transform Data into Opportunity.
A
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Roy Stogner
wrote:
>
> I like DistributedMesh and ReplicatedMesh.
+1
--
Transform Data into Opportunity.
Accelerate data analysis in your applications with
Intel Data Analytics Accelera
I like DistributedMesh and ReplicatedMesh.
---
Roy
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, Derek Gaston wrote:
> Ooooh... DistributedMesh is good.
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:07 PM Kirk, Benjamin (JSC-EG311)
> wrote:
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 2016, at 11:05 AM, John Peterson
> wrote:
> >
> > I
Ooooh... DistributedMesh is good.
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:07 PM Kirk, Benjamin (JSC-EG311) <
benjamin.k...@nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 2016, at 11:05 AM, John Peterson
> wrote:
> >
> > I don't like your proposed names (decomposed == zombies?) but I'm sure
> we could find others.
>
> D
> On Mar 10, 2016, at 11:05 AM, John Peterson wrote:
>
> I don't like your proposed names (decomposed == zombies?) but I'm sure we
> could find others.
DistributedMesh?
Otherwise, pretty good points. Of course we'd want backwards compatible
typedefs for a while.
---
Backwards compatibility is trivial... a typedef will work...
lol... you've been watching too much Walking Dead!
Any other suggestions?
SerialMesh -> MemoryWastingMesh
ParallelMesh -> TimeWastingMesh
?
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:05 PM John Peterson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 9:59 AM, D
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Derek Gaston wrote:
> The time has come. There is simply too much confusion between
> ParallelMesh and SerialMesh. It seems like there's not a week that goes by
> that we don't get a question about using one or the other in the wrong way
> on the mailing lists (
The time has come. There is simply too much confusion between ParallelMesh
and SerialMesh. It seems like there's not a week that goes by that we
don't get a question about using one or the other in the wrong way on the
mailing lists (both libMesh and MOOSE).
I propose this:
ParallelMesh -> Dont
17 matches
Mail list logo
