I'm always looking for areas where I can agree with others, while sometimes simultaneously disagreeing with other bits of what is being said.  I agree with this bit:

On 10/8/06, Marcus G. Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  No ABM system should [...] expose MPI to model code, [...]

 To this end, the TRANSIMS and EpiSIMS developers produced an object-oriented API to MPI that hid the ugliness of the nuts and bolts of the MPI toolkit from the ABM developers.  We've been using it for about 10 years now.  Objects that needed to travel between cpus inherited the necessary functionality from an MPI-aware C++ class.  We also developed the practice of hiding the internals of some the functional object representations of agents in the models.  Serialization, for example, which is necessary when packing an object into a message for sending to another cpu was hidden behind inherited C++ methods and specializations.

--Doug

--
Doug Roberts, RTI International
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Reply via email to