Re: Re: Data_Pagination

On 9/26/06, Andrian Zubko <ondr1@yandex.ru> wrote:

hello all again, i have answered at all your questions, but has not seen any "pluses" and "minuses". ps: i need that to make some conclusions and close this topic

I would personally rather you try to take your package and integrate it into Pager. Pager would be slightly refactored and use your new class (Pager_Lite) as its internals. Having 2 options for the same package *is* ok in PEAR, but we try to avoid it unless there is a large difference between the way that the packages are implemented. In this case it seems like you just made a package with much less functionality than Pager. While it is a good aim to make things faster, proposing a new package is generally not the way to do this, especially for somthing as simple as a pager... It is, of course, true that your package is simpler, but this is because it only does the math of paging and not any actual paging. The Pager package actually does paging of data and has code for outputting the links to the pages. You can try to get your package into PEAR as Paging_Lite (or Math_Paging perhaps) but I would be far more inclined to accept it if it was integrated as a part of Pager. Your approach only differs in that you implement *only* the paging math and not any of the other things that Pager can do. This isn't a different design or a different implementation, just a simpler and more limited one. -- Justin Patrin