Constantin Pape

We should also include #105 here.

Thanks for raising this issue @thewtex. I fully agree that we should strive to be compatible with xarray. To this end, if I understand it correctly, your first proposal would...

0.3 has added `_ARRAY_DIMENSIONS` to the metadata. I am closing this, let us know if anything else is necessary for xarray compatibility, @thewtex.

It turns out that we are currently not compatible with `xarray`, because it cannot deal with having different shapes for the arrays in a group: ``` group.zarr/ array1 (shape=(100, 100,...

> you cannot have two arrays `foo(y, x)` and `bar(y, x)` where `y` and `x` are different I see. > So for now, the easiest way to make these compatible...

> Not to be pendantic, but two intervals sampled at different resolution cannot really be considered "identical". i.e. `0, 1, 2, 3` is not identical to `0, 0.5, 1, 1.5,...

> In the NGFF file format discussion there already seems to be a consensus that we need unique names for coordinate systems. As a result, we already have a unique...

Thanks for the input @thewtex. As far as I understand @rabernat there is no default way to specify multiscale data in `xarray` at this point, so I would hope that...

> Do you mean the dependencies or the libraries built by z5 itself? Yes, the problem is in dynamic linking to some of the dependencies. For a long time, we...

> > For a long time, we needed to link dynamically to boost. > > Why was that ever a problem? As far as I am aware, boost is not...