On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Barry Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > So shell can 1) use some random partitioner or 2) allow the user to > provide the partitioning? > > This is a strange combination. Won't it be better to have > PETSCPARTIONERRANDOM and PETSCPARTITIONERSHELL? > > You could use the random for the tests (but as command line options not > hardwired in the examples). Oh God. Yes, I forgot that was in there. We can move it to Simple, where it makes sense. Matt > > Barry > > > > On Feb 9, 2017, at 9:45 PM, Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 > > -- 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
