On 2013-10-16 20:27, Mikael Mortensen wrote:
Den Oct 16, 2013 kl. 9:17 PM skrev Anders Logg:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 01:00:08PM +0100, Chris Richardson wrote:
On 16/10/2013 09:25, Garth N. Wells wrote:
Does anyone have an opinion on keeping or removing CGAL from DOLFIN?
Below are some pros and cons:
- CGAL makes DOLFIN slow to build and builds use a lot of memory.
- CGAL is unpredictable in throwing errors (predictable in that it
will throw cryptic errors, unpredictable when or with which
compiler).
- CGAL is difficult to understand and the latest version has very
cryptic interface changes.
- Almost all of the random DOLFIN buildbot failures are due to CGAL
mesh generation failures.
+ CGAL provides mesh generation for a variety of simple shape
combinations (the DOLFIN interface to CGAL is not rich enough for
anything serious).
Agreed. Anyone serious will make their mesh independently, so CGAL
is really just an annoying toy in this context... (!)
That may be true, but simple also has a use.
I find the meshing of nontrivial shapes come in very handy in
teaching. It looks much more impressive when I'm solving the Poisson
equation on a combination of circles and pipes...
Teaching is the only benefit that I see (although an issue is that
sometimes your meshes will be randomly screwed up). A possibility would
be to make CGAL generation of DOLFIN meshes a 'fenics-app' that can be
pulled in and periodically tested by users to alleviate the burden it
places on DOLFIN development.
Garth
Mikael
It's an optional dependency, so why is it a big problem?
--
Anders
_______________________________________________
fenics mailing list
[email protected]
http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
_______________________________________________
fenics mailing list
[email protected]
http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
_______________________________________________
fenics mailing list
[email protected]
http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
