1 |
|
\appendix |
2 |
|
\chapter{\label{chapt:oopse}Object-Oriented Parallel Simulation Engine} |
3 |
|
|
4 |
< |
Absence of applying modern software development practices is the |
5 |
< |
bottleneck of Scientific Computing community\cite{Wilson2006}. In |
6 |
< |
the last 20 years , there are quite a few MD packages that were |
4 |
> |
The absence of modern software development practices has been a |
5 |
> |
bottleneck limiting progress in the Scientific Computing |
6 |
> |
community\cite{Wilson2006}. In the last 20 years , a large number of |
7 |
> |
few MD packages\cite{Brooks1983, Vincent1995, Kale1999} were |
8 |
|
developed to solve common MD problems and perform robust simulations |
9 |
< |
. However, many of the codes are legacy programs that are either |
10 |
< |
poorly organized or extremely complex. Usually, these packages were |
11 |
< |
contributed by scientists without official computer science |
12 |
< |
training. The development of most MD applications are lack of strong |
13 |
< |
coordination to enforce design and programming guidelines. Moreover, |
14 |
< |
most MD programs also suffer from missing design and implement |
15 |
< |
documents which is crucial to the maintenance and extensibility. |
16 |
< |
Along the way of studying structural and dynamic processes in |
16 |
< |
condensed phase systems like biological membranes and nanoparticles, |
17 |
< |
we developed and maintained an Object-Oriented Parallel Simulation |
18 |
< |
Engine ({\sc OOPSE}). This new molecular dynamics package has some |
19 |
< |
unique features |
9 |
> |
. Most of these are commercial programs that are either poorly |
10 |
> |
written or extremely complicated to use correctly. This situation |
11 |
> |
prevents researchers from reusing or extending those packages to do |
12 |
> |
cutting-edge research effectively. In the process of studying |
13 |
> |
structural and dynamic processes in condensed phase systems like |
14 |
> |
biological membranes and nanoparticles, we developed an open source |
15 |
> |
Object-Oriented Parallel Simulation Engine ({\sc OOPSE}). This new |
16 |
> |
molecular dynamics package has some unique features |
17 |
|
\begin{enumerate} |
18 |
|
\item {\sc OOPSE} performs Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations on non-standard |
19 |
|
atom types (transition metals, point dipoles, sticky potentials, |
33 |
|
|
34 |
|
\section{\label{appendixSection:architecture }Architecture} |
35 |
|
|
36 |
< |
Mainly written by \texttt{C/C++} and \texttt{Fortran90}, {\sc OOPSE} |
37 |
< |
uses C++ Standard Template Library (STL) and fortran modules as the |
38 |
< |
foundation. As an extensive set of the STL and Fortran90 modules, |
39 |
< |
{\sc Base Classes} provide generic implementations of mathematical |
40 |
< |
objects (e.g., matrices, vectors, polynomials, random number |
41 |
< |
generators) and advanced data structures and algorithms(e.g., tuple, |
42 |
< |
bitset, generic data, string manipulation). The molecular data |
43 |
< |
structures for the representation of atoms, bonds, bends, torsions, |
44 |
< |
rigid bodies and molecules \textit{etc} are contained in the {\sc |
45 |
< |
Kernel} which is implemented with {\sc Base Classes} and are |
46 |
< |
carefully designed to provide maximum extensibility and flexibility. |
47 |
< |
The functionality required for applications is provide by the third |
48 |
< |
layer which contains Input/Output, Molecular Mechanics and Structure |
49 |
< |
modules. Input/Output module not only implements general methods for |
50 |
< |
file handling, but also defines a generic force field interface. |
51 |
< |
Another important component of Input/Output module is the meta-data |
52 |
< |
file parser, which is rewritten using ANother Tool for Language |
53 |
< |
Recognition(ANTLR)\cite{Parr1995, Schaps1999} syntax. The Molecular |
54 |
< |
Mechanics module consists of energy minimization and a wide |
55 |
< |
varieties of integration methods(see Chap.~\ref{chapt:methodology}). |
56 |
< |
The structure module contains a flexible and powerful selection |
57 |
< |
library which syntax is elaborated in |
58 |
< |
Sec.~\ref{appendixSection:syntax}. The top layer is made of the main |
59 |
< |
program of the package, \texttt{oopse} and it corresponding parallel |
60 |
< |
version \texttt{oopse\_MPI}, as well as other useful utilities, such |
61 |
< |
as \texttt{StatProps} (see Sec.~\ref{appendixSection:StaticProps}), |
62 |
< |
\texttt{DynamicProps} (see Sec.~\ref{appendixSection:DynamicProps}), |
63 |
< |
\texttt{Dump2XYZ} (see Sec.~\ref{appendixSection:Dump2XYZ}), |
64 |
< |
\texttt{Hydro} (see Sec.~\ref{appendixSection:hydrodynamics}) |
65 |
< |
\textit{etc}. |
36 |
> |
Mainly written by C++ and Fortran90, {\sc OOPSE} uses C++ Standard |
37 |
> |
Template Library (STL) and fortran modules as a foundation. As an |
38 |
> |
extensive set of the STL and Fortran90 modules, {\sc Base Classes} |
39 |
> |
provide generic implementations of mathematical objects (e.g., |
40 |
> |
matrices, vectors, polynomials, random number generators) and |
41 |
> |
advanced data structures and algorithms(e.g., tuple, bitset, generic |
42 |
> |
data and string manipulation). The molecular data structures for the |
43 |
> |
representation of atoms, bonds, bends, torsions, rigid bodies and |
44 |
> |
molecules \textit{etc} are contained in the {\sc Kernel} which is |
45 |
> |
implemented with {\sc Base Classes} and are carefully designed to |
46 |
> |
provide maximum extensibility and flexibility. The functionality |
47 |
> |
required for applications is provided by the third layer which |
48 |
> |
contains Input/Output, Molecular Mechanics and Structure modules. |
49 |
> |
The Input/Output module not only implements general methods for file |
50 |
> |
handling, but also defines a generic force field interface. Another |
51 |
> |
important component of Input/Output module is the parser for |
52 |
> |
meta-data files, which has been implemented using the ANother Tool |
53 |
> |
for Language Recognition(ANTLR)\cite{Parr1995, Schaps1999} syntax. |
54 |
> |
The Molecular Mechanics module consists of energy minimization and a |
55 |
> |
wide varieties of integration methods(see |
56 |
> |
Chap.~\ref{chapt:methodology}). The structure module contains a |
57 |
> |
flexible and powerful selection library which syntax is elaborated |
58 |
> |
in Sec.~\ref{appendixSection:syntax}. The top layer is made of the |
59 |
> |
main program of the package, \texttt{oopse} and it corresponding |
60 |
> |
parallel version \texttt{oopse\_MPI}, as well as other useful |
61 |
> |
utilities, such as \texttt{StatProps} (see |
62 |
> |
Sec.~\ref{appendixSection:StaticProps}), \texttt{DynamicProps} (see |
63 |
> |
Sec.~\ref{appendixSection:DynamicProps}), \texttt{Dump2XYZ} (see |
64 |
> |
Sec.~\ref{appendixSection:Dump2XYZ}), \texttt{Hydro} (see |
65 |
> |
Sec.~\ref{appendixSection:hydrodynamics}) \textit{etc}. |
66 |
|
|
67 |
|
\begin{figure} |
68 |
|
\centering |
71 |
|
of {\sc OOPSE}} \label{appendixFig:architecture} |
72 |
|
\end{figure} |
73 |
|
|
74 |
< |
\section{\label{appendixSection:desginPattern}Design Pattern} |
74 |
> |
\section{\label{appendixSection:desginPattern}Design Patterns} |
75 |
|
|
76 |
|
Design patterns are optimal solutions to commonly-occurring problems |
77 |
|
in software design. Although originated as an architectural concept |
82 |
|
the experience, knowledge and insights of developers who have |
83 |
|
successfully used these patterns in their own work. Patterns are |
84 |
|
reusable. They provide a ready-made solution that can be adapted to |
85 |
< |
different problems as necessary. Pattern are expressive. they |
86 |
< |
provide a common vocabulary of solutions that can express large |
87 |
< |
solutions succinctly. |
85 |
> |
different problems as necessary. As one of the latest advanced |
86 |
> |
techniques to emerge from object-oriented community, design patterns |
87 |
> |
were applied in some of the modern scientific software applications, |
88 |
> |
such as JMol, {\sc OOPSE}\cite{Meineke2005} and |
89 |
> |
PROTOMOL\cite{Matthey2004} \textit{etc}. The following sections |
90 |
> |
enumerates some of the patterns used in {\sc OOPSE}. |
91 |
|
|
92 |
< |
Patterns are usually described using a format that includes the |
93 |
< |
following information: |
94 |
< |
\begin{enumerate} |
95 |
< |
\item The \emph{name} that is commonly used for the pattern. Good pattern names form a vocabulary for |
96 |
< |
discussing conceptual abstractions. a pattern may have more than one commonly used or recognizable name |
97 |
< |
in the literature. In this case it is common practice to document these nicknames or synonyms under |
98 |
< |
the heading of \emph{Aliases} or \emph{Also Known As}. |
99 |
< |
\item The \emph{motivation} or \emph{context} that this pattern applies |
100 |
< |
to. Sometimes, it will include some prerequisites that should be satisfied before deciding to use a pattern |
101 |
< |
\item The \emph{solution} to the problem that the pattern |
102 |
< |
addresses. It describes how to construct the necessary work products. The description may include |
103 |
< |
pictures, diagrams and prose which identify the pattern's structure, its participants, and their |
104 |
< |
collaborations, to show how the problem is solved. |
105 |
< |
\item The \emph{consequences} of using the given solution to solve a |
106 |
< |
problem, both positive and negative. |
107 |
< |
\end{enumerate} |
92 |
> |
\subsection{\label{appendixSection:singleton}Singletons} |
93 |
|
|
109 |
– |
As one of the latest advanced techniques emerged from |
110 |
– |
object-oriented community, design patterns were applied in some of |
111 |
– |
the modern scientific software applications, such as JMol, {\sc |
112 |
– |
OOPSE}\cite{Meineke2005} and PROTOMOL\cite{Matthey2005} |
113 |
– |
\textit{etc}. The following sections enumerates some of the patterns |
114 |
– |
used in {\sc OOPSE}. |
115 |
– |
|
116 |
– |
\subsection{\label{appendixSection:singleton}Singleton} |
117 |
– |
|
94 |
|
The Singleton pattern not only provides a mechanism to restrict |
95 |
|
instantiation of a class to one object, but also provides a global |
96 |
< |
point of access to the object. Currently implemented as a global |
97 |
< |
variable, the logging utility which reports error and warning |
98 |
< |
messages to the console in {\sc OOPSE} is a good candidate for |
99 |
< |
applying the Singleton pattern to avoid the global namespace |
100 |
< |
pollution.Although the singleton pattern can be implemented in |
101 |
< |
various ways to account for different aspects of the software |
102 |
< |
designs, such as lifespan control \textit{etc}, we only use the |
103 |
< |
static data approach in {\sc OOPSE}. IntegratorFactory class is |
104 |
< |
declared as |
96 |
> |
point of access to the object. Although the singleton pattern can be |
97 |
> |
implemented in various ways to account for different aspects of the |
98 |
> |
software designs, such as lifespan control \textit{etc}, we only use |
99 |
> |
the static data approach in {\sc OOPSE}. The declaration and |
100 |
> |
implementation of IntegratorFactory class are given by declared in |
101 |
> |
List.~\ref{appendixScheme:singletonDeclaration} and |
102 |
> |
Scheme.~\ref{appendixScheme:singletonImplementation} respectively. |
103 |
> |
Since the constructor is declared as protected, a client can not |
104 |
> |
instantiate IntegratorFactory directly. Moreover, since the member |
105 |
> |
function getInstance serves as the only entry of access to |
106 |
> |
IntegratorFactory, this approach fulfills the basic requirement, a |
107 |
> |
single instance. Another consequence of this approach is the |
108 |
> |
automatic destruction since static data are destroyed upon program |
109 |
> |
termination. |
110 |
|
|
111 |
+ |
\subsection{\label{appendixSection:factoryMethod}Factory Methods} |
112 |
+ |
|
113 |
+ |
The Factory Method pattern is a creational pattern and deals with |
114 |
+ |
the problem of creating objects without specifying the exact class |
115 |
+ |
of object that will be created. Factory method is typically |
116 |
+ |
implemented by delegating the creation operation to the subclasses. |
117 |
+ |
One of the most popular Factory pattern is Parameterized Factory |
118 |
+ |
pattern which creates products based on their identifiers (see |
119 |
+ |
Scheme.~\ref{appendixScheme:factoryDeclaration}). If the identifier |
120 |
+ |
has been already registered, the factory method will invoke the |
121 |
+ |
corresponding creator (see |
122 |
+ |
Scheme.~\ref{appendixScheme:integratorCreator}) which utilizes the |
123 |
+ |
modern C++ template technique to avoid excess subclassing. |
124 |
+ |
|
125 |
+ |
\subsection{\label{appendixSection:visitorPattern}Visitor} |
126 |
+ |
|
127 |
+ |
The visitor pattern is designed to decouple the data structure and |
128 |
+ |
algorithms used upon them by collecting related operation from |
129 |
+ |
element classes into other visitor classes, which is equivalent to |
130 |
+ |
adding virtual functions into a set of classes without modifying |
131 |
+ |
their interfaces. Fig.~\ref{appendixFig:visitorUML} demonstrates the |
132 |
+ |
structure of a Visitor pattern which is used extensively in {\tt |
133 |
+ |
Dump2XYZ}. In order to convert an OOPSE dump file, a series of |
134 |
+ |
distinct operations are performed on different StuntDoubles (See the |
135 |
+ |
class hierarchy in Fig.~\ref{oopseFig:hierarchy} and the declaration |
136 |
+ |
in Scheme.~\ref{appendixScheme:element}). Since the hierarchies |
137 |
+ |
remain stable, it is easy to define a visit operation (see |
138 |
+ |
Scheme.~\ref{appendixScheme:visitor}) for each class of StuntDouble. |
139 |
+ |
Note that using Composite pattern\cite{Gamma1994}, CompositeVisitor |
140 |
+ |
manages a priority visitor list and handles the execution of every |
141 |
+ |
visitor in the priority list on different StuntDoubles. |
142 |
+ |
|
143 |
|
\begin{lstlisting}[float,caption={[A classic Singleton design pattern implementation(I)] The declaration of of simple Singleton pattern.},label={appendixScheme:singletonDeclaration}] |
144 |
|
|
145 |
< |
class IntegratorFactory { |
146 |
< |
public: |
134 |
< |
static IntegratorFactory* |
135 |
< |
getInstance(); |
136 |
< |
protected: |
145 |
> |
class IntegratorFactory { public: |
146 |
> |
static IntegratorFactory* getInstance(); protected: |
147 |
|
IntegratorFactory(); |
148 |
|
private: |
149 |
|
static IntegratorFactory* instance_; |
151 |
|
|
152 |
|
\end{lstlisting} |
153 |
|
|
144 |
– |
The corresponding implementation is |
145 |
– |
|
154 |
|
\begin{lstlisting}[float,caption={[A classic implementation of Singleton design pattern (II)] The implementation of simple Singleton pattern.},label={appendixScheme:singletonImplementation}] |
155 |
|
|
156 |
|
IntegratorFactory::instance_ = NULL; |
164 |
|
|
165 |
|
\end{lstlisting} |
166 |
|
|
159 |
– |
Since constructor is declared as protected, a client can not |
160 |
– |
instantiate IntegratorFactory directly. Moreover, since the member |
161 |
– |
function getInstance serves as the only entry of access to |
162 |
– |
IntegratorFactory, this approach fulfills the basic requirement, a |
163 |
– |
single instance. Another consequence of this approach is the |
164 |
– |
automatic destruction since static data are destroyed upon program |
165 |
– |
termination. |
166 |
– |
|
167 |
– |
\subsection{\label{appendixSection:factoryMethod}Factory Method} |
168 |
– |
|
169 |
– |
Categoried as a creational pattern, the Factory Method pattern deals |
170 |
– |
with the problem of creating objects without specifying the exact |
171 |
– |
class of object that will be created. Factory Method is typically |
172 |
– |
implemented by delegating the creation operation to the subclasses. |
173 |
– |
Parameterized Factory pattern where factory method ( |
174 |
– |
createIntegrator member function) creates products based on the |
175 |
– |
identifier (see List.~\ref{appendixScheme:factoryDeclaration}). If |
176 |
– |
the identifier has been already registered, the factory method will |
177 |
– |
invoke the corresponding creator (see List.~\ref{integratorCreator}) |
178 |
– |
which utilizes the modern C++ template technique to avoid excess |
179 |
– |
subclassing. |
180 |
– |
|
167 |
|
\begin{lstlisting}[float,caption={[The implementation of Parameterized Factory pattern (I)]Source code of IntegratorFactory class.},label={appendixScheme:factoryDeclaration}] |
168 |
|
|
169 |
< |
class IntegratorFactory { |
184 |
< |
public: |
169 |
> |
class IntegratorFactory { public: |
170 |
|
typedef std::map<string, IntegratorCreator*> CreatorMapType; |
171 |
|
|
172 |
|
bool registerIntegrator(IntegratorCreator* creator) { |
190 |
|
\begin{lstlisting}[float,caption={[The implementation of Parameterized Factory pattern (III)]Source code of creator classes.},label={appendixScheme:integratorCreator}] |
191 |
|
|
192 |
|
class IntegratorCreator { |
193 |
< |
public: |
193 |
> |
public: |
194 |
|
IntegratorCreator(const string& ident) : ident_(ident) {} |
195 |
|
|
196 |
|
const string& getIdent() const { return ident_; } |
201 |
|
string ident_; |
202 |
|
}; |
203 |
|
|
204 |
< |
template<class ConcreteIntegrator> |
205 |
< |
class IntegratorBuilder : public IntegratorCreator { |
206 |
< |
public: |
207 |
< |
IntegratorBuilder(const string& ident) |
208 |
< |
: IntegratorCreator(ident) {} |
209 |
< |
virtual Integrator* create(SimInfo* info) const { |
210 |
< |
return new ConcreteIntegrator(info); |
211 |
< |
} |
204 |
> |
template<class ConcreteIntegrator> class IntegratorBuilder : public |
205 |
> |
IntegratorCreator { |
206 |
> |
public: |
207 |
> |
IntegratorBuilder(const string& ident) |
208 |
> |
: IntegratorCreator(ident) {} |
209 |
> |
virtual Integrator* create(SimInfo* info) const { |
210 |
> |
return new ConcreteIntegrator(info); |
211 |
> |
} |
212 |
|
}; |
213 |
|
\end{lstlisting} |
214 |
|
|
230 |
– |
\subsection{\label{appendixSection:visitorPattern}Visitor} |
231 |
– |
|
232 |
– |
The visitor pattern is designed to decouple the data structure and |
233 |
– |
algorithms used upon them by collecting related operation from |
234 |
– |
element classes into other visitor classes, which is equivalent to |
235 |
– |
adding virtual functions into a set of classes without modifying |
236 |
– |
their interfaces. Fig.~\ref{appendixFig:visitorUML} demonstrates the |
237 |
– |
structure of Visitor pattern which is used extensively in {\tt |
238 |
– |
Dump2XYZ}. In order to convert an OOPSE dump file, a series of |
239 |
– |
distinct operations are performed on different StuntDoubles (See the |
240 |
– |
class hierarchy in Fig.~\ref{oopseFig:hierarchy} and the declaration |
241 |
– |
in List.~\ref{appendixScheme:element}). Since the hierarchies |
242 |
– |
remains stable, it is easy to define a visit operation (see |
243 |
– |
List.~\ref{appendixScheme:visitor}) for each class of StuntDouble. |
244 |
– |
Note that using Composite pattern\cite{Gamma1994}, CompositVisitor |
245 |
– |
manages a priority visitor list and handles the execution of every |
246 |
– |
visitor in the priority list on different StuntDoubles. |
247 |
– |
|
248 |
– |
\begin{figure} |
249 |
– |
\centering |
250 |
– |
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{visitor.eps} |
251 |
– |
\caption[The UML class diagram of Visitor patten] {The UML class |
252 |
– |
diagram of Visitor patten.} \label{appendixFig:visitorUML} |
253 |
– |
\end{figure} |
254 |
– |
|
255 |
– |
\begin{figure} |
256 |
– |
\centering |
257 |
– |
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{hierarchy.eps} |
258 |
– |
\caption[Class hierarchy for ojects in {\sc OOPSE}]{ A diagram of |
259 |
– |
the class hierarchy. } \label{oopseFig:hierarchy} |
260 |
– |
\end{figure} |
261 |
– |
|
215 |
|
\begin{lstlisting}[float,caption={[The implementation of Visitor pattern (II)]Source code of the element classes.},label={appendixScheme:element}] |
216 |
|
|
217 |
< |
class StuntDouble { public: |
218 |
< |
virtual void accept(BaseVisitor* v) = 0; |
217 |
> |
class StuntDouble { |
218 |
> |
public: |
219 |
> |
virtual void accept(BaseVisitor* v) = 0; |
220 |
|
}; |
221 |
|
|
222 |
< |
class Atom: public StuntDouble { public: |
223 |
< |
virtual void accept{BaseVisitor* v*} { |
224 |
< |
v->visit(this); |
225 |
< |
} |
222 |
> |
class Atom: public StuntDouble { |
223 |
> |
public: |
224 |
> |
virtual void accept{BaseVisitor* v*} { |
225 |
> |
v->visit(this); |
226 |
> |
} |
227 |
|
}; |
228 |
|
|
229 |
< |
class DirectionalAtom: public Atom { public: |
230 |
< |
virtual void accept{BaseVisitor* v*} { |
231 |
< |
v->visit(this); |
232 |
< |
} |
229 |
> |
class DirectionalAtom: public Atom { |
230 |
> |
public: |
231 |
> |
virtual void accept{BaseVisitor* v*} { |
232 |
> |
v->visit(this); |
233 |
> |
} |
234 |
|
}; |
235 |
|
|
236 |
< |
class RigidBody: public StuntDouble { public: |
237 |
< |
virtual void accept{BaseVisitor* v*} { |
238 |
< |
v->visit(this); |
239 |
< |
} |
236 |
> |
class RigidBody: public StuntDouble { |
237 |
> |
public: |
238 |
> |
virtual void accept{BaseVisitor* v*} { |
239 |
> |
v->visit(this); |
240 |
> |
} |
241 |
|
}; |
242 |
|
|
243 |
|
\end{lstlisting} |
245 |
|
\begin{lstlisting}[float,caption={[The implementation of Visitor pattern (I)]Source code of the visitor classes.},label={appendixScheme:visitor}] |
246 |
|
|
247 |
|
class BaseVisitor{ |
248 |
< |
public: |
249 |
< |
virtual void visit(Atom* atom); |
250 |
< |
virtual void visit(DirectionalAtom* datom); |
251 |
< |
virtual void visit(RigidBody* rb); |
248 |
> |
public: |
249 |
> |
virtual void visit(Atom* atom); |
250 |
> |
virtual void visit(DirectionalAtom* datom); |
251 |
> |
virtual void visit(RigidBody* rb); |
252 |
|
}; |
253 |
|
|
254 |
< |
class BaseAtomVisitor:public BaseVisitor{ public: |
255 |
< |
virtual void visit(Atom* atom); |
256 |
< |
virtual void visit(DirectionalAtom* datom); |
257 |
< |
virtual void visit(RigidBody* rb); |
258 |
< |
}; |
302 |
< |
|
303 |
< |
class SSDAtomVisitor:public BaseAtomVisitor{ public: |
304 |
< |
virtual void visit(Atom* atom); |
305 |
< |
virtual void visit(DirectionalAtom* datom); |
306 |
< |
virtual void visit(RigidBody* rb); |
254 |
> |
class BaseAtomVisitor:public BaseVisitor{ |
255 |
> |
public: |
256 |
> |
virtual void visit(Atom* atom); |
257 |
> |
virtual void visit(DirectionalAtom* datom); |
258 |
> |
virtual void visit(RigidBody* rb); |
259 |
|
}; |
260 |
|
|
261 |
|
class CompositeVisitor: public BaseVisitor { |
262 |
< |
public: |
311 |
< |
|
262 |
> |
public: |
263 |
|
typedef list<pair<BaseVisitor*, int> > VistorListType; |
264 |
|
typedef VistorListType::iterator VisitorListIterator; |
265 |
|
virtual void visit(Atom* atom) { |
266 |
|
VisitorListIterator i; |
267 |
|
BaseVisitor* curVisitor; |
268 |
< |
for(i = visitorList.begin();i != visitorList.end();++i) { |
268 |
> |
for(i = visitorScheme.begin();i != visitorScheme.end();++i) { |
269 |
|
atom->accept(*i); |
270 |
|
} |
271 |
|
} |
273 |
|
virtual void visit(DirectionalAtom* datom) { |
274 |
|
VisitorListIterator i; |
275 |
|
BaseVisitor* curVisitor; |
276 |
< |
for(i = visitorList.begin();i != visitorList.end();++i) { |
276 |
> |
for(i = visitorScheme.begin();i != visitorScheme.end();++i) { |
277 |
|
atom->accept(*i); |
278 |
|
} |
279 |
|
} |
283 |
|
std::vector<Atom*> myAtoms; |
284 |
|
std::vector<Atom*>::iterator ai; |
285 |
|
myAtoms = rb->getAtoms(); |
286 |
< |
for(i = visitorList.begin();i != visitorList.end();++i) {{ |
286 |
> |
for(i = visitorScheme.begin();i != visitorScheme.end();++i) { |
287 |
|
rb->accept(*i); |
288 |
|
for(ai = myAtoms.begin(); ai != myAtoms.end(); ++ai){ |
289 |
|
(*ai)->accept(*i); |
290 |
+ |
} |
291 |
|
} |
340 |
– |
} |
292 |
|
|
293 |
|
void addVisitor(BaseVisitor* v, int priority); |
343 |
– |
|
294 |
|
protected: |
295 |
|
VistorListType visitorList; |
296 |
|
}; |
347 |
– |
|
297 |
|
\end{lstlisting} |
298 |
|
|
299 |
+ |
\begin{figure} |
300 |
+ |
\centering |
301 |
+ |
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{visitor.eps} |
302 |
+ |
\caption[The UML class diagram of Visitor patten] {The UML class |
303 |
+ |
diagram of Visitor patten.} \label{appendixFig:visitorUML} |
304 |
+ |
\end{figure} |
305 |
+ |
|
306 |
+ |
\begin{figure} |
307 |
+ |
\centering |
308 |
+ |
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{hierarchy.eps} |
309 |
+ |
\caption[Class hierarchy for ojects in {\sc OOPSE}]{ A diagram of |
310 |
+ |
the class hierarchy. Objects below others on the diagram inherit |
311 |
+ |
data structures and functions from their parent classes above them.} |
312 |
+ |
\label{oopseFig:hierarchy} |
313 |
+ |
\end{figure} |
314 |
+ |
|
315 |
|
\section{\label{appendixSection:concepts}Concepts} |
316 |
|
|
317 |
|
OOPSE manipulates both traditional atoms as well as some objects |
320 |
|
freedom. A diagram of the class hierarchy is illustrated in |
321 |
|
Fig.~\ref{oopseFig:hierarchy}. Every Molecule, Atom and |
322 |
|
DirectionalAtom in {\sc OOPSE} have their own names which are |
323 |
< |
specified in the {\tt .md} file. In contrast, RigidBodies are |
323 |
> |
specified in the meta data file. In contrast, RigidBodies are |
324 |
|
denoted by their membership and index inside a particular molecule: |
325 |
|
[MoleculeName]\_RB\_[index] (the contents inside the brackets depend |
326 |
|
on the specifics of the simulation). The names of rigid bodies are |
480 |
|
and other atoms of type $B$, $g_{AB}(r)$. {\tt StaticProps} can |
481 |
|
also be used to compute the density distributions of other molecules |
482 |
|
in a reference frame {\it fixed to the body-fixed reference frame} |
483 |
< |
of a selected atom or rigid body. |
483 |
> |
of a selected atom or rigid body. Due to the fact that the selected |
484 |
> |
StuntDoubles from two selections may be overlapped, {\tt |
485 |
> |
StaticProps} performs the calculation in three stages which are |
486 |
> |
illustrated in Fig.~\ref{oopseFig:staticPropsProcess}. |
487 |
> |
|
488 |
> |
\begin{figure} |
489 |
> |
\centering |
490 |
> |
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{staticPropsProcess.eps} |
491 |
> |
\caption[A representation of the three-stage correlations in |
492 |
> |
\texttt{StaticProps}]{This diagram illustrates three-stage |
493 |
> |
processing used by \texttt{StaticProps}. $S_1$ and $S_2$ are the |
494 |
> |
numbers of selected StuntDobules from {\tt -{}-sele1} and {\tt |
495 |
> |
-{}-sele2} respectively, while $C$ is the number of StuntDobules |
496 |
> |
appearing at both sets. The first stage($S_1-C$ and $S_2$) and |
497 |
> |
second stages ($S_1$ and $S_2-C$) are completely non-overlapping. On |
498 |
> |
the contrary, the third stage($C$ and $C$) are completely |
499 |
> |
overlapping} \label{oopseFig:staticPropsProcess} |
500 |
> |
\end{figure} |
501 |
|
|
502 |
+ |
\begin{figure} |
503 |
+ |
\centering |
504 |
+ |
\includegraphics[width=3in]{definition.eps} |
505 |
+ |
\caption[Definitions of the angles between directional objects]{Any |
506 |
+ |
two directional objects (DirectionalAtoms and RigidBodies) have a |
507 |
+ |
set of two angles ($\theta$, and $\omega$) between the z-axes of |
508 |
+ |
their body-fixed frames.} \label{oopseFig:gofr} |
509 |
+ |
\end{figure} |
510 |
+ |
|
511 |
|
There are five seperate radial distribution functions availiable in |
512 |
|
OOPSE. Since every radial distrbution function invlove the |
513 |
|
calculation between pairs of bodies, {\tt -{}-sele1} and {\tt |
551 |
|
\end{description} |
552 |
|
|
553 |
|
The vectors (and angles) associated with these angular pair |
554 |
< |
distribution functions are most easily seen in the figure below: |
554 |
> |
distribution functions are most easily seen in |
555 |
> |
Fig.~\ref{oopseFig:gofr}. |
556 |
|
|
565 |
– |
\begin{figure} |
566 |
– |
\centering |
567 |
– |
\includegraphics[width=3in]{definition.eps} |
568 |
– |
\caption[Definitions of the angles between directional objects]{ \\ |
569 |
– |
Any two directional objects (DirectionalAtoms and RigidBodies) have |
570 |
– |
a set of two angles ($\theta$, and $\omega$) between the z-axes of |
571 |
– |
their body-fixed frames.} \label{oopseFig:gofr} |
572 |
– |
\end{figure} |
573 |
– |
|
574 |
– |
Due to the fact that the selected StuntDoubles from two selections |
575 |
– |
may be overlapped, {\tt StaticProps} performs the calculation in |
576 |
– |
three stages which are illustrated in |
577 |
– |
Fig.~\ref{oopseFig:staticPropsProcess}. |
578 |
– |
|
579 |
– |
\begin{figure} |
580 |
– |
\centering |
581 |
– |
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{staticPropsProcess.eps} |
582 |
– |
\caption[A representation of the three-stage correlations in |
583 |
– |
\texttt{StaticProps}]{This diagram illustrates three-stage |
584 |
– |
processing used by \texttt{StaticProps}. $S_1$ and $S_2$ are the |
585 |
– |
numbers of selected stuntdobules from {\tt -{}-sele1} and {\tt |
586 |
– |
-{}-sele2} respectively, while $C$ is the number of stuntdobules |
587 |
– |
appearing at both sets. The first stage($S_1-C$ and $S_2$) and |
588 |
– |
second stages ($S_1$ and $S_2-C$) are completely non-overlapping. On |
589 |
– |
the contrary, the third stage($C$ and $C$) are completely |
590 |
– |
overlapping} \label{oopseFig:staticPropsProcess} |
591 |
– |
\end{figure} |
592 |
– |
|
557 |
|
The options available for {\tt StaticProps} are as follows: |
558 |
|
\begin{longtable}[c]{|EFG|} |
559 |
|
\caption{StaticProps Command-line Options} |
616 |
|
select different types of atoms is already present in the code. |
617 |
|
|
618 |
|
For large simulations, the trajectory files can sometimes reach |
619 |
< |
sizes in excess of several gigabytes. In order to effectively |
620 |
< |
analyze that amount of data. In order to prevent a situation where |
621 |
< |
the program runs out of memory due to large trajectories, |
622 |
< |
\texttt{dynamicProps} will estimate the size of free memory at |
623 |
< |
first, and determine the number of frames in each block, which |
660 |
< |
allows the operating system to load two blocks of data |
619 |
> |
sizes in excess of several gigabytes. In order to prevent a |
620 |
> |
situation where the program runs out of memory due to large |
621 |
> |
trajectories, \texttt{dynamicProps} will first estimate the size of |
622 |
> |
free memory, and determine the number of frames in each block, which |
623 |
> |
will allow the operating system to load two blocks of data |
624 |
|
simultaneously without swapping. Upon reading two blocks of the |
625 |
|
trajectory, \texttt{dynamicProps} will calculate the time |
626 |
|
correlation within the first block and the cross correlations |