On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 11:23:29AM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> 2008/4/1, Kent-Andre Mardal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > tir, 01.04.2008 kl. 11.08 +0200, skrev Martin Sandve Alnæs:
> >
> > > I don't see what's the point of that. The only reasons for
> > > Matrix/Vector are related to having a single LA backend in each
> > > application run, but a variety of solvers may be used in the same
> > > application.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I thought the reason for having Matrix/Vector was to ensure that only
> > GenericMatrix/GenericVector functionality was used. I guess the PETSc
> > and the uBlas families now live seperate lives.
>
> Then why don't you come up with an example of where this makes sense
> for solvers.
Here's an example:
Choosing the type of solver based on some criterion and then
reusing the solver:
// At startup
LinearSolver* solver = 0;
if (solver_type == "direct")
solver = new LUSolver();
else
solver = new KrylovSolver()
// Then reuse it
while (t < T)
{
...
solver->solve(A, x, b);
}
This is used in the ODE solvers, where one may specify the type of
solver used to solve the linearized equations in each iteration based
on a parameter.
When calling LUSolver::solve(), it needs to choose a specific backend
for the solution, depending on the backend used for A, x, b. Same for
KrylovSolver.
Still not sure if it should be LinearSolver or GenericLinearSolver
above.
--
Anders
_______________________________________________
DOLFIN-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
