cook api

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

cook api

Tudor Girba
Hi,

I see that there are changes that go back and forth in the Cook API.  
For example, FAMIXMethod>>sureIncomingInvocations just returned to the  
original implementation.

What is happening in this area? :)

Were the original changes of Cyrille just an experiment? If yes, we  
should leave them out for now. If no, why is the situation reverted  
only for the case of sureIncomingInvocations?

Cheers,
Doru

--
www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow."



_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cook api

Simon Denier-3

On 22 mars 2010, at 09:15, Tudor Girba wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I see that there are changes that go back and forth in the Cook API. For example, FAMIXMethod>>sureIncomingInvocations just returned to the original implementation.
>
> What is happening in this area? :)

We are trying to rationalize/simplify/optimize the implementation of Cook using some kind of specs. This is mostly brainstorming for now.


> Were the original changes of Cyrille just an experiment? If yes, we should leave them out for now. If no, why is the situation reverted only for the case of sureIncomingInvocations?


I agree that we should leave them out for 4.0. I think that Jannik noticed that DSM tests failed on sureIncomingInvocations and that's why it was reverted. One related issue is that we still dont have development branches so we cant test the new implementation independently (still a few issues to work out in the wizard).


--
 Simon




_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cook api

Tudor Girba
Ok, then I would suggest to revert to the original changes and only  
leave the helper traversals.

Doru


On 22 Mar 2010, at 11:30, Simon Denier wrote:

>
> On 22 mars 2010, at 09:15, Tudor Girba wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I see that there are changes that go back and forth in the Cook  
>> API. For example, FAMIXMethod>>sureIncomingInvocations just  
>> returned to the original implementation.
>>
>> What is happening in this area? :)
>
> We are trying to rationalize/simplify/optimize the implementation of  
> Cook using some kind of specs. This is mostly brainstorming for now.
>
>
>> Were the original changes of Cyrille just an experiment? If yes, we  
>> should leave them out for now. If no, why is the situation reverted  
>> only for the case of sureIncomingInvocations?
>
>
> I agree that we should leave them out for 4.0. I think that Jannik  
> noticed that DSM tests failed on sureIncomingInvocations and that's  
> why it was reverted. One related issue is that we still dont have  
> development branches so we cant test the new implementation  
> independently (still a few issues to work out in the wizard).
>
>
> --
> Simon
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

--
www.tudorgirba.com

"There are no old things, there are only old ways of looking at them."



_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev