On 17 February 2010 13:38, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote: > > I do not think this handles the situation for libraries. I write a library. > It is > supposed to work with lots of stuff, including PETSc. I put in mpi.h, which > is completely reasonable. Then the user of the library wants to use mpiuni. >
Well, I cannot buy that a user REALLY want to use mpiuni, as it is not even a true serial MPI alternative... > > This works now, but would break in your model. > That's a valid point (but from a developer POV, not from a user POV, IMHO) > I still much prefer a separate package. It think it is cleaner, unambiguous > what is happening, and would allow someone not as lazy as us to do a full > serial MPI. Like mpi-serial, from http://www.mcs.anl.gov/research/projects/mct/ ?? Do you think that it is work the effort to integrate it in PETSc, provided that mpiuni already serves (well?) PETSc requeriments? -- Lisandro Dalcin --------------- Centro Internacional de M?todos Computacionales en Ingenier?a (CIMEC) Instituto de Desarrollo Tecnol?gico para la Industria Qu?mica (INTEC) Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cient?ficas y T?cnicas (CONICET) PTLC - G?emes 3450, (3000) Santa Fe, Argentina Tel/Fax: +54-(0)342-451.1594
