On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Roy Stogner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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.
I agree. I've always thought it would be cool to have a home-grown DistributedMatrix to go with it as well (LibMesh's own SparseMatrix implementation) so I'd like to see it stay as a leaf class if possible... Now that so many supercomputer sites have PETSc or Trilinos installed this doesn't seem very necessary, but as LibMesh is getting packaged by other distros, it would be cool if it had some parallel linear algebra abilities "out of the box". -- John ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
