On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 11:10:17 +0100
Benjamin Kehlet <[email protected]> wrote:

> 2014-01-31 Garth N. Wells <[email protected]>:
> > On 2014-01-31 08:01, Marco Morandini wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I suggest moving the mesh generation part to a separate
> >>> component. This will remove CGAL completely from Dolfin, since
> >>> CGAL is now used only for mesh generation.
> >>>
> >>> This new component will depend on Dolfin. We (ie. Johannes :-) )
> >>> will generate Debian/Ubuntu packages and provide a
> >>> dorsal .package file, so installation shouldn't be more
> >>> complicated than before this split.
> >>>
> >>>> From a users perspective the changes should be minimal (an extra
> >>>
> >>> import in python). Maybe Dolfin can try to import the module to
> >>> provide backward compatibility for a while?
> >>>
> >>> Even if this opposes the ongoing effort to reduce the number of
> >>> components in FEniCS, I think it is the best solution for now.
> >>>
> >>> Anders suggested the name "mshr" which I think is cool. A very
> >>> preliminary version (without python support yet) is here:
> >>> https://bitbucket.org/benjamik/mshr/
> >>>
> >>> Opinions? Objections?
> >>
> >>
> >> Personally, I fear that this component will quickly bitrot if left
> >> separated from dolfin.
> >
> >
> > This is a danger. It has proven very difficult for projects to
> > survive outside of the core packages. For it succeed, it would need
> > to become an 'official' package with a sufficiently large group of
> > core contributors.
> 
> To some extent this is also a danger within Dolfin. The current 3D
> implementation is messy implemented and not very robust.
> 
> >
> >
> >> And I don't completely grasp the rationale
> >> behind the change: you someone want a quick build why don't
> >> configure without CGAL? The net effect would be the same: dolfin
> >> without CGAL.
> >>
> >
> > There are the practical aspects of building, and the problem that
> > the implementation is half-baked and fragile. Given the difficulty
> > of mesh generation as a stand-alone problem, I do see advantages in
> > spinning it out as a separate package.
> >
> > A separate package could provide a common interface to a few
> > generation libraries (CGAL, Gmsh, netget), each of which has
> > strengths for particular types of problems
> 
> That is on the TODO list. Tetgen is an obvious candidate as well.
> 
> >
> >
> >> That said, I think that what is really important is that
> >> the kind of application sketched in
> >>
> >> http://fenicsproject.org/pipermail/fenics/2013-October/000685.html
> >>
> >> will still work without requiring writing and reading data to disk.
> >>
> >
> > This won't be a problem if mshr has a dolfin::Mesh interface.
> >
> >
> >> On a separate note: I'm using Dorsal and I see that the files are
> >> built with -DCGAL_DISABLE_ROUNDING_MATH_CHECK .
> >>
> >
> > This option is not used on the buildbots, and they see periodic
> > CGAL meshes crashes. My experience is that CGAL meshing is solid
> > for smooth 3D volumes defined by implicit surfaces, but very
> > fragile for polyhedra, with robustness falling away as the number
> > of facets increases.
> 
> In my experience crashes have been due to errors on my side, typically
> attempting to mesh a polyhedron containing self intersections.

Then note that there is a newly reported failing case
https://bitbucket.org/fenics-project/dolfin/issue/224/cgal-produces-degenerate-cells

Jan

> 
> Benjamin
> 
> >
> > Garth
> >
> >> Fabri, couldn't be this the cause of the random meshing failures
> >> the developers are experiencing?
> >> Shouldn't the files that include CGAL headers built without this
> >> flag and with -fexcess-precision=standard instead?
> >> Has this been discussed before?
> >>
> >> Marco
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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

Reply via email to