On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 13:58 +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > On 31/05/10 13:50, Anders Logg wrote: > > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 01:17:15PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >> At the moment, a linear solver is not associated with a particular > >> matrix. This makes it awkward and dangerous to re-use > >> preconditioners, factorisations, etc. I suggest that we change the > >> interface of the linear solver classes to accept a matrix at > >> construction, and that the solvers maintain a (smart) pointer to the > >> matrix. Opinions?
Agree that something should be done with the linear solver interface. > > > > It feels awkward to associate a linear solver with a specific system. > > > > Why is that? All our la backends do it. It seems natural to me since > solving a linear system involves a number of data structures which are > specific to the matrix. > > Garth > > > One option would be to have both Problem and Solver classes for linear > > systems. Should the Problem then include the linear system, preconditioner and factorized matrices ? Kent > > > > This is also related to the following blueprint that addresses the > > issue of the inconsistency between the interfaces for linear systems > > and variational problems: > > > > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/dolfin/+spec/solver-interfaces > > > > -- > > Anders > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
