Re: [pooma-dev] Unstructured meshes

[Richard Guenther]

On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Renato F. Cantao wrote:

> Hello Guys (well, eventually girls also...)!
>
> I'm stuck with the new Pooma Field concept. In the old days (Pooma
> 2.3.0), I've managed to create an UnstructuredMesh class (for finite
> elements), based on the guidelines in DiscreteGeometry.URM.h, Field.h,
> UniformRectiliearMesh.{h,cpp}, etc.
>
> The distinction bewteen
>
>     . "dimensions" = number of indices needed to address an element in
>     the mesh, and
>
>     . "coordinateDimensions" = number of indices needed to address a
>     position in the mesh (or, equivalently, the mesh spatial dimension)
>
> made possible the implementation of something like:

[...]

> *But*, now, with this new abstraction:
>
>        . Centering, Layout and Field work very tied together (at least
>        it seems to me, as far as I could dig in the code), and
>
>        . The distinction between "dimensions" and
>        "coordinateDimensions" seems to have disapeared...
>
> So the question is: Pooma Field version 2.4.0 seems to be much more
> "tied" to Finite Differences concept. There's a way to re-integrate my
> UnstructuredMesh into this new Field concept, or it's so far way from
> this new architecture that I should simply forget the matter?

Having hacked a lot on the Mesh classes I can assure you the tying of
those two dimensions is not really tied (it just happens to be the same).
It would be trivial (err well - until we try, we dont know) to losen this
again.

If you want to work in this area maybe you want to look at my local
versions of the mesh classes (they add a RectilinearMesh as well as
reinstantiate coordinate system support). If yes, drop me a note and I'll
tar up my local repository.

Richard.

--
Richard Guenther <address@hidden>
WWW: http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/
The GLAME Project: http://www.glame.de/