From: Roy S. <ro...@st...> - 2008-06-24 19:51:50
|
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Benjamin Kirk wrote: >> Assuming you mean NumericVector not DistributedVector, that sounds >> like an excellent idea > > Actually, I meant DistributedVector<>, and the inheritance would change. > But your point is well taken. The implementation could just as easily be > done in NumericVector<>, and then the DistributedVector<> would become > obsolete. It could be retained for compatibility, but wouldn't need to > implement anything. Well, actually I'd like to see DistributedVector retained as a leaf class, even if we refactor the inheritance to supply new support for distributed ghost dofs in the "trunk" above NumericVector. Yay PETSc, yay Trilinos, but I still kind of like the idea of having a bare-bones parallel vector implementation that doesn't require a large third party package to be compiled in. --- Roy |