On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 04:27:19PM -0700, Ben Bangert wrote: > Christoph Haas wrote: > > I'd personally accept that the API changes as long as the module is > > called something else. The Python standard library has a lot of examples > > where old modules became deprecated with the time and modules with > > similar names appeared that has different APIs. I don't mean to say that > > my intention is to deprecate the built-in paginator. That's e.g. Ben's > > decision. :) > > > I'm not at all attached to the paginator in WebHelpers, it was ported > rather hastilly from Rails and had the other collection handling methods > tacked on. I'd be happy to use this one, especially if someone else will > be maintaining it. ;)
If others are happy with the API as it is I'd be happy to see it included as an alternative module in the webhelpers. I'll be maintaining it. As long as you maintain the black magic orm module. ;) Would it be okay if the old module stay in there for a while with the name "webhelpers.pagination" and the new one is included as "webhelpers.paginate"? Those who use the currently existing paginator will not want to have their applications break due to the completely different API. If there is functionality missing in my module please let me know. I haven't used the old pagination module that in-depth. Christoph --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
