Subject: [FEniCS-dev] New project?

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 14:07:48 +0100

I suggest that we add Instant as a new FEniCS project:

    http://pyinstant.sf.net/

This project was discussed briefly in Delft. For those who missed the
introduction, Instant is a simple tool for inlining C/C++ in Python.
Here's an example:

  >> from instant import inline
  >> f = inline("double f(double x, double y) { return x+y; }")
  >> f(2, 3)
  >> 5

We currently have something similar in PyDOLFIN but could use Instant
instead.

Any objections?

/Anders

---

From: "Garth N. Wells" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 14:18:33 +0100

Is FEniCS the most appropriate place for Instant? It's a generic tool 
(not PDE/numercal analysis/modelling specific) so being part of FEniCS 
might not help Instant in terms of exposure. Sourceforge is probably 
better(?). Also the theme behind FEniCS components becomes diluted. clear.

Garth

Anders Logg wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> FEniCS-dev mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics-dev
>

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 14:51:52 +0100

We have never decided on what the requirements should be on a FEniCS
project. I agree that we should not become a SourceForge for
scientific computing (it's more like GNOME or the Mozilla project).

What should the requirements be? A very loose requirement would be
that it should "fit in", something that

  1. provides new functionality by using some of the current components;

or

  2. implements functionality used by some of the current components;

Instant fits in under (2). We currently have dolfin-swig in DOLFIN
that does something similar to what instant does and when adding a
dependency from DOLFIN to Instant, it's practical to put Instant on
fenics.org.

But let's discuss what the requirements should be.

/Anders

---

From: Kent-Andre Mardal <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 23:02:59 +0100

Hi, 

It is up to you. Instant is currently 
a sourceforge project and I am happy to let it stay there. 

However, the only "real" use of Instant that I am aware of 
is in finite element computations (it has been used with Diffpack and is
in use with PyCC/SyFi). It is in combination with code generation in
Python that it is useful. The reason Instant has been seperated 
out of the projects PyCC and SyFi is that I think that separation is a
nice design goal if it is "natual". 

So, whether it "fit in" or not, I don't know. It is in use with SyFi,
but I don't think that is a strong reason for putting it out
on fenics. SyFi uses other packages which are not fenics packages. 

Kent

---

From: "Martin Sandve Alnæs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:18:31 +0100

I think Garth is right, Instant can get more exposure at SF, from
people who would never be interested in fenics.

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 16:07:17 +0100

I don't think it is necessary for all projects to be "pure FEM" codes.
I imagine it might be useful to separate out a few libraries from
DOLFIN, like the parameter system and the log system. It would then be
practical to place these libraries as separate projects on fenics.org.

Other opinions?

/Anders

---

From: [email-masked] (Ridgway Scott)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:16:29 -0600 (CST)

>I don't think it is necessary for all projects to be "pure FEM" codes.

FEniCS should be about how scientific codes are written, and
a repository for artifacts used in writing codes. So instant
seems to fit within this definition to me.

It can also be featured at sourceforge; I don't see a conflict,
just an extra burden to keep two sites up to date. The more
exposure, the more likely it will be that people will learn
about it and learn how to use it.

				Ridg

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:26:50 +0100

> about it and learn how to use it.

I agree.

Any further comments/objections?

/Anders

---

From: "Johan Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:41:39 +0100 (MET)

> Any further comments/objections?

I have no objections.

/Johan

---

From: "Garth N. Wells" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:48:53 +0100

> Any further comments/objections?

No problems.

Garth

---

From: Anders Logg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:17:17 +0100

> > Any further comments/objections?

ok!

It will show up some time next week.

/Anders