Kevin Dangoor wrote: > On 4/30/06, Simon Belak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Should this go into the official distribution? I like it (although it >> could do with some refactoring). > > There have been a few pagination approaches submitted along the way, > and I *do* think it's a good thing to include. However, I just hadn't > decided on an approach to take because there are always tradeoffs and > I haven't played with them enough to know which api "feels right". > > This one looks like a reasonable implementation, though. One thing > that can throw people off: the query is re-run every time. This is > very different from a typical search engine scenario where the list of > results is held on to and paging is done through that (ensuring a > consistent view of the data). It depends on your data set (and how > often it changes) whether or not that matters. > > This does also require 2 queries to retrieve the data on every hit. > > All of that aside, this API does look friendly and complete enough > that I think we can take it.
Maybe we can get him to provide different schemas for data retrieval? Cheers, Simon --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears Trunk" 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/turbogears-trunk -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
