User Tools

Site Tools


meeting-2013

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Next revision
Previous revision
Next revisionBoth sides next revision
meeting-2013 [2013/04/13 03:08] – created mikael.ohmanmeeting-2013 [2013/04/14 16:40] mikael.ohman
Line 1: Line 1:
 === Maintenance === === Maintenance ===
   - Avoiding duplicated information (impossible to keep things up-to-date in the manuals). Good would be to store everything in-code (perhaps with some script scavengers all information from the headers automatically)   - Avoiding duplicated information (impossible to keep things up-to-date in the manuals). Good would be to store everything in-code (perhaps with some script scavengers all information from the headers automatically)
-  - Modularity: Having each REGISTER_CLASS() in the respective source file.+  - Modularity: Having each REGISTER_CLASS() in the respective source file. Code for registering components exists for string-only versions (I'm hoping that classtype versions should rather be removed). Currently works for dynamic linking, but static linking is a problem (static symbols are optimized away)
   - classType has to go. Replace with strings (Note: ''int DataStream::write(const std::string &data); + read'' already exists!). This effects context files and load balancing.   - classType has to go. Replace with strings (Note: ''int DataStream::write(const std::string &data); + read'' already exists!). This effects context files and load balancing.
   - Reduce numbering of engineering models   - Reduce numbering of engineering models
Line 22: Line 22:
   - Active boundary conditions will use sets instead of storing their own list of elements.   - Active boundary conditions will use sets instead of storing their own list of elements.
   - See where to go from there (perhaps it's possible to keep backwards compability)   - See where to go from there (perhaps it's possible to keep backwards compability)
 +
 +=== License ===
 +  - Keep GPL - Might cut of commercial interest that could be benefitial
 +  - Switch to LGPL - Commercial might pay developers to extend OOFEM to include new elements, materials, contact models, etc.
 +  - Offer separate commercial license - We would probably require a copyright assignment agreement for contributions to work with this. Seems unlikely to happen.
meeting-2013.txt · Last modified: 2014/08/04 19:06 by mikael.ohman