Re: [pooma-dev] RFA: Field-Related Pooma Code Changes

[Scott Haney]

on 3/27/01 7:48 PM, Jeffrey Oldham at address@hidden wrote:

> The majority of these changes consist of:
> o Reorder constructor's initializers to reflect class declaration order.
> o Add an initializer for the base class.
> o Add `typename's.
> o Change preprocessor line from `if' to `ifdef'.
> 
> Are these changes OK to commit?
> 

Hi Jeffrey,

The first three changes seem like a very good idea, but I want to go through
the specifics. I will get you an answer this morning.

As for the 4th, POOMA has adopted the policy of using affirmative feature
selection macros like

#if POOMA_CHEETAH

// do stuff special for cheetah

#endif

I am presuming that the correct macros are not being defined or else we have
not followed the convention everywhere. This means that the fix is not
making it an ifdef. I'll look at the cases you describe.

One more point that may not be obvious is that the directories

BConds
CoordinateSystems
Field
Geometry
Meshes

implement the old POOMA Field class, which will be removed from POOMA 2.4 in
lieu of the Field class currently in NewField. This has a few implications:

(1) we should de-emphasize work in these directories and on tutorials,
examples, benchmarks, etc using the old field

(2) we need to write our kernels using the new field. This is the
implementation that Blanca is using

(3) we need to get develop a plan for getting rid of the old field stuff and
putting the new field in the right places

The biggest complication to (3) is that particles depend on the old field.
Julian, it would be nice if you could take a look at what's involved in
transitioning particles and give us all an idea of the scope of this work.

Scott