Code review comment for lp://staging/~hopem/charm-helpers/lp1694963

Revision history for this message
Alex Kavanagh (ajkavanagh) wrote :

I'm not sure I understand the rationale of using another store for this persistent data? why not just use the regular kv() store and just use the same 'namespace' that it already being proposed; it's unlikely to clash with anything else. Plus, the decorator will not be needed, and it simplifies the code.

review: Needs Fixing

« Back to merge proposal