First, thank you for a highly demanded array-oriented approach.
But I have a question associated with the user-defined types (UDT):
Doesn’t SciDB need an additional statement CREATE ARRAY_TYPE?
For me, this would address several conceptual and practical issues.
At this time, the Array instance looks like a singleton whose id is simultaneously
used as a type identifier and instance identifier. An ArrayType would allow to
distinguish these two concepts
maintain extends of array types ( e.g. streams from multiple devices of the same families)
use a type identifier for supporting nested arrays
consolidate array and UDT type systems
Actually, the ArrayType would be consistent with the present SciDB conceptual array model
(as well as other run-time type systems), the previous paper “Retirements for Science Bases
and SciDB” (define vs create), and the SCiDB class model (Array::getHandle just needs to return
its own identifier)
Please let me know if this is so or if I missed something.