Closed vreuter closed 3 months ago
Hi @vreuter, in general, sure. Very open to suggestions. That beings said, it might be, especially as we move towards Zarr v3, that we try to hide, deprecate or remove much of the io
package which was necessary with Zarr v2. What would you think about reviewing the situation once that work has taken place?
That beings said, it might be, especially as we move towards Zarr v3, that we try to hide, deprecate or remove much of the
io
package which was necessary with Zarr v2.
OK, understood
What would you think about reviewing the situation once that work has taken place?
Yes, sounds good :)
TY @joshmoore I'm going to close this for now to reduce noise in the issues, hope that's OK and obviously feel free to reopen if this ticket's wanted as a reminder
Hello, would you consider making some types, like
ZarrLocation
, available at the package level, to facilitate e.g.from ome_zarr import ZarrLocation
, rather than needing to specify that this is fromio
? It would have at least these benefits...a) make it easier to get started with using this as a library after quickly scanning the documentation and not yet internalising where each desired piece of functionality is implemented, and without needing to do as much object inspection in a REPL. b) make the library more robust for users against future potential refactors and changes in the placement of implementations / organisation of the library, with less lift on the dev side needed to support backward compatibility