On 27 May 2014 10:48, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 04:32:54PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > Are there any strong opinions on keeping or removing the Trilinos > > backend from DOLFIN? I ask now because there is a maintenance burden > > in having both (I'm feeling this acutely with the switch to local > > dof indices), and the Trilinos backend gets far less polishing and > > testing than the PETSc backend, which can make a less favourable > > impression on users who use the Trilinos backend. > > > > Another issue is that it is becoming difficult to provide users with > > a common interface to more sophisticated solvers since these are > > closely tied to the design of the underling linear algebra backend. > > I've never really used the Trilinos backend but think that it has been > a good design decision for us to keep both PETSc and Trilinos as > options. > > That said, I certainly can't afford to spend any time on maintaining > it so I understand if you feel the same. > > As you know, I am pro Trilinos and have used it a lot. That said, my reason for using Trilinos was mainly its nice Python interface, but I guess PETSc has a nice interface as well now.
Kent
_______________________________________________ fenics mailing list [email protected] http://fenicsproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics
