![]() ![]() It only consists of the API related to creation/assignment/cleanup of the dictionary and the 3 catalyst_. With the aforementioned change, the API that simulation will use to setup and execute Catalyst is fixed and limited.The API, for example, can comprise of just 3 calls: catalyst_initialize(params), calatayst_execute(params), and catalyst_finalize(params) where parameters for each of the calls are passed through that dictionary-like data-structure. Instead of every adaptor instrumentation defining its own API, this also helps us standardize the adaptor interface. ![]() In that case, the pvspy_sta(.) function in the example above, could be rewritten as a pvspy_sta(params). Something that lets the simulation pass named parameters by value or reference to the adaptor e.g. Use a data-structure to pass data / meta-data from simulation to the adaptor.With these questions in mind, let’s enumerate the key aspects of a design that can address them: make it possible to recreate the environment within the simulation without having to run the simulation? Design Can we simplify this debugging use-case i.e. pipeline) fails when running in situ with the simulation but the problem it hard to reproduce using just ParaView or pvbatch. Sometimes a filter (or some other component in the in situ analysis and viz. This enables simulations to easily update to latest version of ParaView and go back to an earlier stable version in case of regressions.Īnother common challenge encountered when using Catalyst is debugging. That way it’s easy to try multiple version of ParaView. Can we support a use-case where the simulation doesn’t need to rebuild / re-link whenever there’s a new version of ParaView? A corollary of this is can we support run-time selection of which version of ParaView/Catalyst to use. That being the case, for each release of ParaView, the simulation needs to be rebuilt with an updated version of ParaView. It’s fair to say that ParaView/Catalyst changes more frequently than the simulation code. So the first question becomes can we give the API some structure so that we avoid running into this kind of adaptor code which is tedious to maintain and debug. Int nbxpa12, int nbxpa22, int nbypa11, int nbypa21, int nbypa12, int nbypa22, int nbzpa11, Int nbyma22, int nbzma11, int nbzma21, int nbzma12, int nbzma22, int nbxpa11, int nbxpa21, Int nbxma11, int nbxma21, int nbxma12, int nbxma22, int nbyma11, int nbyma21, int nbyma12, Int npypa21, int npypa12, int npypa22, int npzpa11, int npzpa21, int npzpa12, int npzpa22, Int npzma12, int npzma22, int npxpa11, int npxpa21, int npxpa12, int npxpa22, int npypa11, ![]() Int npxma22, int npyma11, int npyma21, int npyma12, int npyma22, int npzma11, int npzma21, Int bxtop, int bybot, int bytop, int bzbot, int bztop, int npxma11, int npxma21, int npxma12, For example, here’s a function from a real life CTH Catalyst Adaptor void pvspy_sta(int block_id, int allocated, int active, int level, int max_level, int bxbot, This has a tendency for creating functions with a large set of arguments that can get very confusing very quickly. Looking at various existing adaptor implementations, it becomes clear that most of these are an arbitrary collection of C functions that are passed initialization parameters and simulation data-structures and meta-data. This is proposal that puts together some of the ideas discussed. We have been mulling updates to Catalyst API – the API and patterns developers use to when instrumenting a simulation to work with Catalyst – for a while now and we’ve had several discussions with several folks. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |