Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Inquiry about the Development Status of CALFEM #69

Open
kulasegaram opened this issue Feb 20, 2024 · 4 comments
Open

Inquiry about the Development Status of CALFEM #69

kulasegaram opened this issue Feb 20, 2024 · 4 comments

Comments

@kulasegaram
Copy link

kulasegaram commented Feb 20, 2024

Hello everyone! I'd like to express my gratitude to the development team behind the CALFEM project. I have successfully utilized your library as an optional dependency in the project IfcTruss for conducting structural analysis on a truss system.

Now, I'd like to ask for some information about the development status of CALFEM. I've noticed that CALFEM is currently listed as “Beta” on PyPI. I wondered if there's any estimated timeline or roadmap for achieving “stable” status.

Your insights and experiences are greatly appreciated!

@jonaslindemann
Copy link
Contributor

Hi!

The Beta-designation have been there since the start of the project. It is probably related to it being a research software project and support is on a best effort basis. On the other hand we try to avoid any breaking changes to the the core modules. Adding additional commands instead of changing the API. The API have been pretty stable during the last 5 years.

I will probably remove the designation from the next release.

Jonas Lindemann

@kulasegaram
Copy link
Author

Thanks for the prompt answer! IfcTruss relies on the core module and its functions from CALFEM in its _calfem module:

  • import calfem.core as cfc
  • cfc.bar3e()
  • cfc.assem()
  • cfc.solveq()
  • cfc.extractEldisp()
  • cfc.bar3s()

May I kindly inquire if these can be deemed stable and if there are no potential future modifications?

@jonaslindemann
Copy link
Contributor

These routines are considered stable. However, we reserve the right to add features and bug fixes` to these functions. In doing so we will make sure that the old API is still available. cfc.extractEldisp(...) is the old name for the function. I would recommend using cfc.extract_eldisp(...) instead.

@kulasegaram
Copy link
Author

Thanks for bringing that to my attention! I will change this in the next release.

I found this function in an example in the documentation:

image

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants