On Sun, Sep 02, 2012 at 11:26:14AM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > On 2 September 2012 11:20, Anders Logg <l...@simula.no> wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 01:33:38PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > >> Can someone remind me why we have the two classes SymmetricAssembler > >> and SystemAssembler instead of just one? > > > > SymmetricAssembler adds some extra functionality not provided by > > SystemAssembler (symmetric modification of RSH vector), but I suspect > > it does so at an extra cost, which is why SymmetricAssembler is still > > there. > > > > I used to think it is a problem to have multiple assemblers, but I'm > > not so worried about it now. > > > > It's a problem if a bug pops up (like we have now) that 4 versions > need to be fixed.
Yes, but my view then is to have one (or perhaps two) officially supported assemblers and then allow special purpose assemblers that pass unit tests but which may otherwise lack functionality, be provided "as is" and be the responsibility of whoever added them. > The purpose of Assembler OpenMPAssembler are clear, but it's not clear > why we have both SymmetricAssembler and SystemAssembler. The extra > functionality is limited and could easily go into SystemAssembler. I believe SystemAssembler is a bit faster, but I may remember wrong. -- Anders _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : dolfin@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
