On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Roy Stogner <royst...@ices.utexas.edu>
wrote:
>
> We take MeshBase& as a necessary argument for half a dozen functions,
> we're going to need a MeshBase for the new ghosting functor APIs
> too...
>
> Plus, we're not actually capable of handling multiple mesh objects
> from the same DofMap except in the case where those meshes are
> basically identical: we can attach SparseMatrix objects and sparsity +
> send_list augmentation objects that are ridiculously mesh-dependent.
>
> So is there any reason we shouldn't just bite the bullet, give the
> DofMap a MeshBase& at construction time, and deprecate that argument
> in the methods which use it?
>
Sounds reasonable to me. The only reason off the top of my head would be
if it was a common pattern for one to build/manage DofMaps manually, but
this definitely is not the case AFAIK.
--
John
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and traffic
patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols are
consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow,
J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity
planning reports. http://sdm.link/zohodev2dev
_______________________________________________
Libmesh-devel mailing list
Libmesh-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
