On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Benjamin Kirk wrote:
>> Assuming you mean NumericVector not DistributedVector, that sounds >> like an excellent idea > > Actually, I meant DistributedVector<>, and the inheritance would change. > But your point is well taken. The implementation could just as easily be > done in NumericVector<>, and then the DistributedVector<> would become > obsolete. It could be retained for compatibility, but wouldn't need to > implement anything. Well, actually I'd like to see DistributedVector retained as a leaf class, even if we refactor the inheritance to supply new support for distributed ghost dofs in the "trunk" above NumericVector. Yay PETSc, yay Trilinos, but I still kind of like the idea of having a bare-bones parallel vector implementation that doesn't require a large third party package to be compiled in. --- Roy ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php _______________________________________________ Libmesh-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
