[Dune] [Dune-Commit] dune-grid r5015 - trunk/grid/test

[Carsten Graeser]

Hi.
For a painless transition there are now two different interfaces using
different local indices. Mixing both is very dangerous and might lead
to the problem that the code runs, but simply produces wrong results
(which was intendet to be avoided by the renaming).

Thus I suggest additionally to immediate deprecation of the old methods
to surround ALL of them by

#ifndef DUNE_DISABLE_OLD_LOCAL_INDICES
[...]
#endif

This allows to check if old indices are still used and is especially
necessary since member template deprecation does not work with gcc.

Carsten


Oliver Sander schrieb:
> Hi Martin!
>> as far as I remember the decision in Heidelberg (and I understand that 
>> Christian remembers the same), the old template method is to be 
>> deprecated and removed post 1.3.
> Well, great, let's do it!
>> What confuses me is that you were one of the guys who wanted a hard 
>> break in the numbering while you have to change a lot of code. Anyway, 
>> I never wanted to offend you; my interest lies solely in a consistent 
>> interface. I'm in no way against discussions. But in this case a 
>> discussion started over things that we decided upon and the discussion 
>> seemed to weaken the interfaces consistency in quite a critical point, 
>> namely the subentity numbering.
> Apparently a misunderstanding triggered by my weak memory.  Apologies.  
> Let's just
> continue the transition.
>> Personally, I would have deprecated the old subIndex / subId methods 
>> already. The problem is that many grids don't support the replacement, 
>> yet, so people cannot change their code to the new implementation.
> In dune-grid it's really only SGrid and YaspGrid.  The ALU-Hack could 
> applied there as well
> with little effort.
> 
> --
> Oliver
> 
>> Maybe we should add FlySpray tasks for all the grids that don't 
>> support these methods, yet...
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> Oliver Sander wrote:
>>> Hi Martin, hi all!
>>>
>>>
>>>> ok, I thought yesterday's discussion was quite final. I read Oliver's
>>>> statement as "I don't want to do this messy renumbering stuff, can't 
>>>> someone
>>>> else do it". 
>>> Not quite.  I do not want to dodge the numbering stuff (in fact I can't,
>>> I maintain quite a lot of code that depends on local edge and face
>>> numbers).  My problem was that I don't quite remember what we
>>> decided, and I didn't find it written down.  Therefore I took the 
>>> conservative
>>> point of view and assumed that the old methods would stay.
>>> If they stay, though, it's very confusing to have the old methods use
>>> a different numbering than the new ones.  That was my point.
>>>
>>> Now if we have actually decided that the old subIndex methods should
>>> disappear (post 1.3) (which I think is a good decision), then I agree 
>>> that
>>> they can keep the old numbering, but they should be marked as deprecated
>>> immediately, in order to avoid consistency issues.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Oliver
>>>
>>>> With this in mind I simply changed things to the state they
>>>> should be according to the Heidelberg discussion.
>>>>
>>>> The only thing left was Peter's argument and (as far as I remember) we
>>>> discussed this in Heidelberg and decided that there should be no 
>>>> performance
>>>> loss due to inlining and compiler optimization.
>>>>
>>>> If someone wants to reopen the Heidelberg discussion, feel free to 
>>>> do so. But
>>>> until there is a different decision I think we should stick to what 
>>>> we already
>>>> decided.
>>>>
>>>> Yours,
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Carsten Graeser wrote:
>>>>  
>>>>> Dear Dune Developers,
>>>>> from the messages below the current state on the subIndex method 
>>>>> seems to be:
>>>>>
>>>>> *Oliver wants the template-arg method to have the same numbering
>>>>> *Peter wants the template-arg method to remain
>>>>> *Sven thinks that having different numbering conflicts with keeping 
>>>>> the template-arg method
>>>>>  but remembers that is was decided differently
>>>>> *Martin thinks that the numbering should be different and changed 
>>>>> the test accordingly
>>>>>
>>>>> So currently there seems to be no definite agreement about this issue.
>>>>> Perhaps it would be a good idea to decide this before further 
>>>>> changes are
>>>>> applied. (Especially for maintainers of a grid implementation like 
>>>>> me. ;-) )
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regard
>>>>> Carsten
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oliver Sander schrieb:
>>>>>   
>>>>>> Shouldn't the old method use the new numbering as well?
>>>>>> Then the test would be okay as it is.
>>>>>>       
>>>>> Peter Bastian schrieb:
>>>>>   
>>>>>>> - Do we keep the old member template methods?
>>>>>>>         
>>>>>> I would keep it, as it might be more efficient.
>>>>>>       
>>>>> Sven Marnach schrieb:
>>>>>   
>>>>>> As I remember the discussion, the idea was to keep the old methods
>>>>>> with the old numbering for a smooth transition, providing backward
>>>>>> compatibility for one release.  After the transition period, the old
>>>>>> methods are to be deleted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That idea somehow conflicts with the idea to keep the old subIndex
>>>>>> method with a template codim parameter.
>>>>>>       
>>>>> mnolte at dune-project.org schrieb:
>>>>>   
>>>>>> Author: mnolte
>>>>>> Date: 2009-04-03 09:43:03 +0200 (Fri, 03 Apr 2009)
>>>>>> New Revision: 5015
>>>>>> Modified: trunk/grid/test/checkindexset.cc
>>>>>> ===================================================================
>>>>>> --- trunk/grid/test/checkindexset.cc    2009-04-03 07:40:07 UTC 
>>>>>> (rev 5014)
>>>>>> +++ trunk/grid/test/checkindexset.cc    2009-04-03 07:43:03 UTC 
>>>>>> (rev 5015)
>>>>>> @@ -448,9 +448,17 @@
>>>>>>                   // the subIndex and the index for subEntity must 
>>>>>> be the same          assert( vxidx == lset.index( *vxp ));
>>>>>> +        +        typedef GenericGeometry::MapNumberingProvider< 
>>>>>> dim > Numbering;
>>>>>> +        const unsigned int tid = GenericGeometry::topologyId( 
>>>>>> it->type() );
>>>>>> +        const int gi = Numbering::template dune2generic< dim >( 
>>>>>> tid, i );
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>          // static and dynamic method must yield the same result
>>>>>> -        assert( vxidx == lset.subIndex(*it,i,dim));
>>>>>> +        if( vxidx != lset.subIndex( *it, gi, dim ) )
>>>>>> +        {
>>>>>> +          std::cerr << "Error: subIndex< dim >( entity, i ) != 
>>>>>> subIndex( entity, dune2generic( i ), dim )" << std::endl;
>>>>>> +          assert( vxidx == lset.subIndex( *it, gi, dim ) );
>>>>>> +        }
>>>>>>                     // check whether the coordinates are the same 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>> assert(vertexCoordsMap.find(vxidx)!=vertexCoordsMap.end());
>>>>>>       
>>>>>     
>>>>   
>>>
> 
> 


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Carsten Gräser           | phone: +49-30 / 838-75349
Freie Universität Berlin | fax  : +49-30 / 838-54977
Institut für Mathematik  | email: graeser at math.fu-berlin.de
Arnimallee 6             |
14195 Berlin, Germany    | URL  : http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/graeser
----------------------------------------------------------------------