# Building on OrdinaryDiffEq.jl vs DiffEqBase.jl

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/building-on-ordinarydiffeq-jl-vs-diffeqbase-jl/85620>\
**Category:** Numerics\
**Tags:** question, package, diffeq, ordinarydiffeq\
**Created:** [August 11, 2022, 2:11pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/building-on-ordinarydiffeq-jl-vs-diffeqbase-jl/85620 "2022-08-11T14:11:55Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ChrisRackauckas](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/chrisrackauckas/32/77_2.png) [@ChrisRackauckas](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/ChrisRackauckas)\
**Post date:** [August 20, 2022, 11:36am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/building-on-ordinarydiffeq-jl-vs-diffeqbase-jl/85620/4 "2022-08-20T11:36:59Z")

</div>

> [@nathanaelbosch](#):
>
> (e.g. I saw that both of them have their own `Integrator` type whereas I just used the one from OrdinaryDiffEq.jl directly).

They are doing rather weird things that require different adaptivity algorithms, which is the reason for that.

> [@nathanaelbosch](#):
>
> What would be the best way of doing that? Maybe a first step could be a section in the ProbNumDiffEq.jl documentation that lists exactly which part of OrdinaryDiffEq.jl has been built on? If there is a possibility for adding downstream tests that would of course also be great, but as I mentioned most unexpected issues are already prevented just by upper bounding the compat.

Both would be good.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/building-on-ordinarydiffeq-jl-vs-diffeqbase-jl/85620)._