THIS IS AN AUTOMATED MESSAGE, DO NOT REPLY.

The following task has a new comment added:

FS#250 - Folder structure
User who did this - Bernd Flemisch (bernd)

----------
If we find a truly better structure, we should make the effort.

One option could be to move the implicit "porous media models" out of the 
"implicit" folder into a folder "porousmedia", "darcyflow" or something like 
that. Only considering the implicit stuff, that would look nice:

dumux
|---implicit
|   |---box
|   |---cellcentered
|   |---common
|---porousmedia
|   |---1p
|   |---...
|---geomechanics
|   |---elastic
|   |---...
|---freeflow
    |---stokes
    |---...

But what about decoupled/sequential? A consistent way would be to substructure 
further the folders inside "porousmedia" which would result in the following:

dumux
|---decoupled
|   |---common
|       |---fv
|       |---mimetic
|---implicit
|   |---box
|   |---cellcentered
|   |---common
|---porousmedia
|   |---1p
|   |   |---decoupled
|   |   |---implicit
|   |---...
|---geomechanics
|   |---elastic
|   |---...
|---freeflow
    |---stokes
    |---...

Introducing an "implicit" subfolder for the models that only have an implicit 
implementation does not make too much sense to me. Then, we would be left with 
the not so nice situation that some implicit porous media models are located in
dumux/porousmedia/XX/implicit, 
while others are located in
dumux/porousmedia/XX.

The other option would be to move the folders "freeflow" and "geomechanics" to 
"implicit", and to have also the folder "porousmedia" as a subfolder there:

dumux
|---implicit
    |---box
    |---cellcentered
    |---common
    |---porousmedia
    |   |---1p
    |   |---...
    |---geomechanics
    |   |---elastic
    |   |---...
    |---freeflow
        |---stokes
        |---...

It would be less invasive, since "decoupled" could be left unmodified.

I tend a bit towards the first way since:
- application areas would be visible on a higher level, namely, as subfolders 
of "dumux" and "test"
- it brings decoupled and implicit closer together

What do you think? Is one of the proposed structures "truly better" and worth 
the effort? Can you think of a other options?

----------

More information can be found at the following URL:
http://www.dumux.org/flyspray/index.php?do=details&task_id=250#comment506

You are receiving this message because you have requested it from the Flyspray 
bugtracking system.  If you did not expect this message or don't want to 
receive mails in future, you can change your notification settings at the URL 
shown above.
_______________________________________________
Dumux mailing list
[email protected]
https://listserv.uni-stuttgart.de/mailman/listinfo/dumux

Reply via email to