On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Paul T. Bauman <ptbau...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
This sounds fine to me... > because it looked like to me that you always have a composition with the H1 > conforming case. ...if that statement is true. It's true for H(div), but I can't really comment on the specifics of other vector-valued bases. H(curl)? > But maybe I missed something? It also may be more clear to explicitly do this > for each > "branch" of FE. Thoughts? It might be possible to have a more complete separation between the mapping aspects of the FE class and the approximation space aspects, i.e. have an "FEMap" base class and corresponding hierarchy? But there's no reason to worry about that potential design change while you are already immersed in creating FEAbstract... maybe it could be looked at again later if it seems useful. -- John ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
