Hi Marco, Avi and all

I absolutly agree that it should stay simple and easy to use.

>You should not see a difference between
>code that uses prevayler and code that doesn't use prevayler.

This is our dream, I think... Because it will be not simple to implement.

What I suggest for our first step is:
Make the current implementation stable and valuable to use
...this would mean: write unit-tests for all the code and make a simple
example to show how to use it.

We then have a stable base with tests which can then be extended in a second
step.

Other thoughts, opinions?

I'm willing to help.
I look foreward to use it for future web-applications. I think, Prevayler
will be a very valuable (concerning time costs) solution for persistency.

Adrian


> Marco Paga <mail at marco-paga.de> wrote:
>
> > In my mind that is something that is against the idea of prevalence. The
> > programmer would have to think on more details. SPrevayler would become
> > feature laden and that is something I don't want prevayler to be. In my
> > mind it should be easy to use. You should not see a difference between
> > code that uses prevayler and code that doesn't use prevayler.
>
> Seconded !
>
> -- Hannes
>