FS#252 Change names "decoupled" and "implicit"?
Metadata
Property | Value |
---|---|
Project | dumux |
Category | General |
Reported by | Bernd Flemisch (bernd@iws.uni-stuttgart.de) |
Reported at | Dec 18, 2014 17:27 |
Type | Feature Request |
Version | Git |
Last edited by | Kilian Weishaupt (kilian.weishaupt@iws.uni-stuttgart.de) |
Last edited at | Mar 7, 2016 17:11 |
Closed by | Kilian Weishaupt (kilian.weishaupt@iws.uni-stuttgart.de) |
Closed at | Mar 7, 2016 17:11 |
Closed in version | 2.9 |
Resolution | Implemented |
Description
This task originated from FS#250:
fetzer: we already discussed whether decoupled is a useful name or sequential would be more helpful
alexk: and I dont like the term implicit since the decoulped models are also partly implicit, fullycoupled is a better term in my opinion. I think the term implicit is very misleading.
Martin: I agree with Alex and as far as I know this is handled similar in literature. Maybe this could be a first step to unify decoupled with fully coupled models
bernd: From my perception over the last years, "fully implicit" seems to be more standard than "fully coupled." And it better describes what is happening. In any case, changing "implicit" is horrifying me quite a bit. Having to decide between "decoupled" and "sequential", I would prefer "sequential". However, I would like "impes" best and consider it standard, disregarding the fact that we don't transport saturations only. I even would prefer "impet", since that is how our common "decoupled" models and problems are called.
bernd: Concerning "impes", I changed my opinion. I like "sequential" best, since we also want to add "impAs", adaptive implicit and so on.