Closed mkoeppe closed 4 years ago
Author: Matthias Koeppe
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:
51dd905 | sage.numerical.backends.generic_sdp_backend: Allow solver = a user-defined subclass of GenericSDPBackend |
Description changed:
---
+++
@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
... in analogy to #28914.
-
+(However, in contrast to #28914, the solver must be a subclass of `GenericSDPBackend`.)
as a concrete example of using this, could we have csdp (an optional sage spkg) as a backend this way?
it does even have a dynamic library available.
The doctests already provide a concrete (but useless) example.
Before spending effort on sage-specific SDP backend development, let's survey what kind of interfacing routes for SDP solvers are available. Either by extending
Meta-ticket #26511 (Use Python optimization interfaces: PuLP, Pyomo, cylp...), which is currently LP/MILP-centric, or a separate meta ticket for SDP solvers.
Also see #30049 (MatrixSDPBackend
).
Let's get this in please
Reviewer: Dima Pasechnik
lgtm.
Thanks!
Changed branch from u/mkoeppe/sage_numerical_backends_generic_sdp_backendallowsolvera_callable to 51dd905
... in analogy to #28914.
(However, in contrast to #28914, the solver must be a subclass of
GenericSDPBackend
.)CC: @dimpase @yuan-zhou
Component: numerical
Author: Matthias Koeppe
Branch/Commit:
51dd905
Reviewer: Dima Pasechnik
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/30031