On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Barry Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Matt, > > I don't understand PETSCPARTITIONSHELL. > > Why does it exist? Why not just use PETSCPARTITIONSIMPLE when no other > partitioner exists? > > Why is it called shell? Other XXSHELL allow users to provide their own > routines to provide the XX functionality, this does not seem to do that. So > it is not shell in the PETSc sense. > > Why hard wire examples to use it? Why not just have list it as an args: > in the test cases with -petscpartitioner_type shell (but why not just > simple?) putting the ugly shit directly into the source code seems > unnecessary and annoying. 1) The two partitioners do different things: Simple: It divides the cells evenly without reordering. Shell: It allows the user to set a prescribed partition It is clear to me that Shell is needed because sometimes you want to prescribe the partition, if for no other reason than you know that a certain partition has a bug. Simple is questionable, but we were using it for testing. 2) It is called Shell because for a shell the user prescribes the behavior directly, which is exactly what happens. 3) I did not put it in arguments because it can get very long, and I thought it was easier to see and manipulate in the code. I am open to moving it. Matt > > > Barry > > > > -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener
