Jeremy Maitin-Shepard

> Thanks, the timing makes more sense now. > > As an example, If I have {10,10} chunks and I want to write to [35:45][35:45] parts. it will be divided...

Also there was a recent fix for sharded writing --- make sure you are using a sufficiently new version (0.1.63 or later).

Write takes two parameters. But additionally, since Write is asynchronous, the array needs to have a Shared element pointer so that Write can retain a reference. Here since you are...

You don't need to use a transaction to ensure that concurrent writes by different processes to disjoint portions of the same chunk are not lost --- this is always ensured,...

> This all points to adding a paragraph or two to the `bytes` codec on datatype extensions. > > As I understand it, there are two properties of any data...

As for making the decoding operation explicit --- codec means encoder/decoder. For lossless ones (all that are currently specified) the decoding operation doesn't need to be defined mathematically (since it...

> > It would be nicer if this could be done in a consistent place for both core and extension data types but I don't think it matters that much...

> > That just adds an extra indirection for the bytes codec > > The goal is to be _consistent_ in our use of indirection. Today we are inconsistently indirect,...

> > As for making the decoding operation explicit --- codec means encoder/decoder. For lossless ones (all that are currently specified) the decoding operation doesn't need to be defined mathematically...

> > I think in some cases, such as the bytes codec, the decode definition is sufficiently straightforward based on the encode definition that stating it separately wouldn't add any...