issue_comments: 302652106

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/pull/1260#issuecomment-302652106 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/1260 302652106 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDMwMjY1MjEwNg== 10050469 2017-05-19T09:14:47Z 2017-05-19T09:14:47Z MEMBER

which is also why I was questioning reusing the existing xarray backends system.

I am starting to understand what you mean, but in the absence of template I guess this was the easiest way to go (I overtook the design of the original PR). If you agree I'd suggest you to have a more detailed look at the current PR when you have time, and we can decide what to do from here. Since the public facing API shouldn't be affected we could also keep the current design for now and go back to it later when https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/1087 is ready.

Just a small suggestion: to me open_raster seems a slightly better name than open_rasterio as the dataset is a 'raster', not a 'rasterio'.

Yes I thought about it too, but a vast majority of the datasets xarray is reading are raster datasets (although in NetCDF format), hence "open_raster" could be confusing. "open_rasterio" underlines the fact that this opens "all datasets rasterio can open". I have no strong opinion about this though

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   206905158