VertexUpdateFunction class has memory between the supersteps

[Attila Bernáth]

Dear All,

I am using the spargel API. I found that the VertexUpdateFunction
class has memory between the supersteps. Is it safe to rely on this
memory?

Attila

[Stephan Ewen]

Hi!

I am not sure that I understand the question. What memory between supersteps are you referring to?

If you mean that the same instances of the functions are used across all supersteps and that their variables are kept: yes, you can rely on that.

Stephan

Am 15.10.2014 17:09 schrieb "Attila Bernáth" <[hidden email]>:

Dear All,

I am using the spargel API. I found that the VertexUpdateFunction
class has memory between the supersteps. Is it safe to rely on this
memory?

Attila

[Attila Bernáth]

For example: an instance of the vertexupdatefunction processes certain
vertices in one superstep (in its updateVertex method). Can I assume
that it will process the same vertices in the next superstep, too?

Attila

2014-10-16 1:34 GMT+02:00 Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]>:

> Hi!
>
> I am not sure that I understand the question. What memory between supersteps
> are you referring to?
>
> If you mean that the same instances of the functions are used across all
> supersteps and that their variables are kept: yes, you can rely on that.
>
> Stephan
>
> Am 15.10.2014 17:09 schrieb "Attila Bernáth" <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I am using the spargel API. I found that the VertexUpdateFunction
>> class has memory between the supersteps. Is it safe to rely on this
>> memory?
>>
>> Attila

[Stephan Ewen]

Yes, that is guaranteed.

Am 16.10.2014 10:23 schrieb "Attila Bernáth" <[hidden email]>:

For example: an instance of the vertexupdatefunction processes certain
vertices in one superstep (in its updateVertex method). Can I assume
that it will process the same vertices in the next superstep, too?

Attila

2014-10-16 1:34 GMT+02:00 Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]>:
> Hi!
>
> I am not sure that I understand the question. What memory between supersteps
> are you referring to?
>
> If you mean that the same instances of the functions are used across all
> supersteps and that their variables are kept: yes, you can rely on that.
>
> Stephan
>
> Am 15.10.2014 17:09 schrieb "Attila Bernáth" <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I am using the spargel API. I found that the VertexUpdateFunction
>> class has memory between the supersteps. Is it safe to rely on this
>> memory?
>>
>> Attila

[Attila Bernáth]

So I thought I can use this fact to remember something about these nodes.


2014-10-16 11:25 GMT+02:00 Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]>:

> Yes, that is guaranteed.
>
> Am 16.10.2014 10:23 schrieb "Attila Bernáth" <[hidden email]>:
>
>> For example: an instance of the vertexupdatefunction processes certain
>> vertices in one superstep (in its updateVertex method). Can I assume
>> that it will process the same vertices in the next superstep, too?
>>
>> Attila
>>
>> 2014-10-16 1:34 GMT+02:00 Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]>:
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > I am not sure that I understand the question. What memory between
>> > supersteps
>> > are you referring to?
>> >
>> > If you mean that the same instances of the functions are used across all
>> > supersteps and that their variables are kept: yes, you can rely on that.
>> >
>> > Stephan
>> >
>> > Am 15.10.2014 17:09 schrieb "Attila Bernáth" <[hidden email]>:
>> >
>> >> Dear All,
>> >>
>> >> I am using the spargel API. I found that the VertexUpdateFunction
>> >> class has memory between the supersteps. Is it safe to rely on this
>> >> memory?
>> >>
>> >> Attila