On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 09:11:46PM +0100, Johan Hake wrote: > On Friday 20 March 2009 20:29:16 Anders Logg wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 03:39:03PM +0100, Johan Hake wrote: > > > Hello! > > > > > > Soon it will be time to shift from ffc.Foo in PyDOLFIN to ufl.Foo. This > > > should(!?) be quite straight forward to do. > > > > > > Then the only ffc releated code in PyDOLFIN would be the jit call in > > > dolfin.jit.py > > > > > > Would it be a point to continue the migration of the whole jit > > > compilation thing to ufc instead of beeing a part of the form compiler? > > > > > > The form compiler could provide a python interface that ufc.jit could > > > use. For example: > > > > > > FC.signature(ufl_form, options = None) > > > FC.compile_form(ufl_form, options = None) > > > > > > where FC is the form compiler. Based on these two functions ufc will > > > return a form from the cache or call the FC.compile_form to produce > > > code,compile the extension module and return the compiled form. > > > > > > ufc could have a configuration file naming the prefered form compiler and > > > jit could of course also take option "form_compiler" too. > > > > > > Does this make sense? Are the above functions enough? > > > > > > If we do this PyDOLFIN is clean from dependencies to a certain form > > > compiler. > > > > Sounds good to me! > > Ok, > > I suggest that we get the PyDOLFIN interface up and running with ufl stuff > when this has stabilized and when this is in place we can migrate to a > ufc.jit.
Sounds good. We plan to make a new release of FFC (0.6.2) as soon as we can with experimental support for UFL forms. This will be followed by a new release (0.9.0) with cleanups and removed support for .form. -- Anders > It's also good to here if Martin knows if there will be any problems to > integrate sfc with this approach. > > Johan
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
