Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Review HttpRangeReader location #3256

Closed
pomadchin opened this issue Jun 12, 2020 · 4 comments · Fixed by #3260
Closed

Review HttpRangeReader location #3256

pomadchin opened this issue Jun 12, 2020 · 4 comments · Fixed by #3260
Assignees

Comments

@pomadchin
Copy link
Member

pomadchin commented Jun 12, 2020

This task is to review HttpRange reader, its location (the package location) and the library we use to implement it.

In terms of #3254 we moved out HttpRangeReader out of the spark package into the store, but mb there is a better place for it?

My original thought was geotrellis.spark.store.http.util => geotrellis.store.http.utill but it looks like we need to revisit this descision.

@echeipesh
Copy link
Contributor

My vote is to get it as close to geotrellis.raster as possible so GeoTiffRasterSouce is able to read COGs from HTTP without bringing in the store package which is generally to do with the indexed layers.

@pomadchin
Copy link
Member Author

@echeipesh hm, where should the FileRangeReader live in this case?

@pomadchin
Copy link
Member Author

And also the HdfsRangeReader

@pomadchin pomadchin changed the title Review HttpRangeReader Review HttpRangeReader location Jun 16, 2020
@CloudNiner
Copy link
Contributor

There was an argument to move this into geotrellis.util which "might be weird because it uses scalaj".

There was also an argument for geotrellis.raster because this is really a GeotiffHttpRangeReader so its real utility is coupled to geotiffs defined in geotrellis.raster.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants