On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:57 PM, John Peterson <jwpeter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One question about the design here: H(div) elements will presumably
> require a different type of mapping [0] than what FEBase currently
> does with Lagrange.
>
> So, should the geometry mapping stuff really be moved up into
> FEAbstract, or would it be better to have virtual interfaces for that
> which can be redefined by FEVectorBase?
>
My thinking was to create a PiolaTransformation object which augmented the
current mapping within the FEVectorBase class because it looked like to me
that you always have a composition with the H1 conforming case. But maybe I
missed something? It also may be more clear to explicitly do this for each
"branch" of FE. Thoughts?
Thanks for the comments.
Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Libmesh-devel mailing list
Libmesh-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
