issue_comments: 195955210
This data as json
| html_url | issue_url | id | node_id | user | created_at | updated_at | author_association | body | reactions | performed_via_github_app | issue |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/790#issuecomment-195955210 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/790 | 195955210 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDE5NTk1NTIxMA== | 10050469 | 2016-03-13T13:13:56Z | 2016-03-13T13:15:07Z | MEMBER | Hi @jhamman , I tend to agree with your doubts. I'll still comment on your cons: To (1): I also think that xarray should avoid opening the projection can of worms. But the minimum things that xarray could do with rasterio is to read corner coordinates, dx and dy and define the two coordinates "x" and "y" out of it, without taking care of whether these are meters, degrees of arc or whatever. As long at the other rasterio file attributes are available as attribute of the To (2): some geotiffs files also have more than one band. I don't know if these bands are named or have metadata, so maybe xarray will have to take decisions about these names too (most probably 1, 2, 3...). I'll add a (3): rasterio depends on GDAL, which is huge and every now and then causes trouble on conda. This might also cause troubles to the continuous integration of xarray Altogether this might be more complicated than worth it, but maybe the rasterio folks have interest in this and might provide more support. If the idea for xarray accessors is implemented (https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/706#issuecomment-169099306) this will allow more specific libraries like mine to do their own rasterio support at low cost. |
{
"total_count": 0,
"+1": 0,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
} |
140063713 |