On 07/16/10 20:00, Carl Ollivier-Gooch wrote:
On 10-07-16 04:21 PM, Devine, Karen D wrote:
A. Change the iMesh_createEnt function to include an entity set handle argument PH. For serial applications, PH would be the root set; that is, entities are added only to the root set. For parallel applications, PH would be a part handle; the created entity would be added to the part identified by the part handle. Since iMesh_createEnt is an iMesh function (not an iMeshP function), we would use entity set handle as the argument type, so that serial users would not have to include iMeshP.h nor link with iMeshP. This option was generally accepted by Carl, Simmetrix, Sandia and RPI. Tim is in favor of adding the argument, but does not like the restriction of the handle to be either the root set or a part handle. My fear in allowing arbitrary entity set handles to be used is as follows: if a service uses the entity set handle to, say, add entities to a boundary condition set, that service could not be used in parallel, as its iMesh_createEnt calls would not add the entities to a part.
B. Add a new iMeshP function iMeshP_createEnt that takes as input a part handle. Parallel services would need to use iMeshP_createEnt to add entities, include iMeshP.h, and link with an iMeshP library; iMesh_createEnt would return an error. Serial services would continue to use iMesh_createEnt. This option is more explicit than option A, but requires more work on the user's part if the user wants code to work both with and without iMeshP.
I think for A, we proposed that the argument be NULL in case of serial. If we want no restriction in iMesh, then maybe we can instead pass an array of entity sets to iMesh_createEnt, and then in iMeshP stipulate that one of them has to be a part.
One point we didn't discuss but, perhaps, should have was when and how entity ownership should be assigned. The proposed changes add entities to parts, but do not address determining the ownership or copy-status of an entity. I am not sure where these issues should most appropriately be resolved; can they be postponed until iMeshP_syncPartitionAll?
I had assumed that we were talking about setting ownership, since that's the real sticking point: entities that don't have an owner can't be modified (as I interpret the current spec).
Carl
Actually, no, we create different entities (ie. pointers) on different parts on the part boundary but only one part has the right to modify. The part is not modifying the entity in the _create function. saurabh