On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Christoph Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, Jorge... > > > On Donnerstag, 1. Mai 2008, Jorge Vargas wrote: > > hi I was going to ask about this but I saw this recent thread > > regarding the pagination and it seems better to follow up on this than > > to start a new thread. Please note this is my first time working on > > paginated data with pylons. > > > > From what I understand currently pylons has 3 different pagination > > modules. 1- current released webhelpers package (0.3.x) > > http://pypi.python.org/pypi/WebHelpers/ > > 2- current trunk webhelpers package (0.6.x) - side question what > > happen to .4 and .5? > > 3- the paginate module http://paginate.workaround.org/?page_nr=1 and > > http://pypi.python.org/pypi/paginate/0.3.2 > > There has been much confusion indeed. For a long time there has been the > webhelpers.pagination module that Ben ported from Ruby-on-Rails (1). I was > very unhappy with it because the documentation was not clear for non > Ruby-on-Rails users and it took some source-code reading to figure out how > to use it. And even then it was not very comfortable. So I started working > on an alternative pagination module. A working version is what you can > find on PyPi and on paginate.workaround.org (3). > > Then Mike, Ben and I decided that it's time my module gets integrated into > the next version of webhelpers (2). Currently the webhelpers version 0.6 > is in the making and is probably released soon. The "paginate" module is > now integrated there and I'm currently working on the last cosmetic > changes. > > Webhelpers 0.4 and 0.5 have never been released AFAIK. > > > > now #3 was supposed to become part of webhelpers (so I read), does > > that means #3 and #2 are the same? > > The webhelpers.paginate (#3) version is newer and has a few more features. > #2 is still fully usable if you need it outside of a Pylons context. > > > > why #1 got replaced? what are it's problems? > > IMHO webhelpers.pagination is uncomfortable, doesn't have enough useful > features and needs too much code to get simple pagination. > > > > will #2 and #3 work with current released pylons (0.9.6.x)? > > When webhelpers 0.6 are released you won't need #3 seperately any more. > > > > overall what are the differences between the three modules? > > and which one is recommended for production, right now I'm interested > > in having as little tip/head dependencies as possible for this project > > as it's launch date is really near. > > I'm confident that #2 is stable. I'm using it in two real-life projects > already. Feel free to use that. > > > > which one is more future proof, for example I assume #1 will go away > > ones pylons 0.9.7 gets out. > > #1 is still present in webhelpers 0.6 but deprecated. It will go away. > Pylons 0.9.7 depends on webhelpers 0.6 so you can still use it if you have > code using it. > > Christoph (hoping he didn't tell nonsense) > -- > When you do things right people won't be sure you've done anything at all. > Thank you very much on this input. this is exactly what I was looking for.
then I guess the short version (for people reading this in the future will be) if you like/know RoR pagination go with #1 if you want a better implementation use #2 and after 0.9.7 go with #3 (or if you are feeling experimental) I have installed and configure #2 and I find it great, documentation is excelent and the sample project is really something. Thanks for this great module. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
