Christoph , > > p.pager(controller='ctrl', action='act') > > If I understand the explicit stuff correctly then this should be the right > way to use it. Right?
depends on what you want to do :). My patch frees you from providing the controller/action explicitly as they can be pulled out of a regular pylons app stack (they were not present in your code sample though). If you provide the controller/action as above then even the current implementation of the paginator works perfectly with explicite=True. However I'd consider it bad practice to specify the same controller/ action name at two distinct places (the controller/action themselves and the call to Page/pager). explicit=True disables two things: 1. Route Memory - the controller, action, etc. of the current request are not reused if missing (e.g. in a call to url_for). 2. Implicit Defaults - if controller/action are missing they are no longer replaced by controller='content' and action='index'. (1) was the reason for which the paginator failed in the first place in a regular pylons application with explicit=True because the call to url_for in the paginator relied on this feature. (2) was the reason for which your code sample failed as the controller/ action were missing. > I'll send Mike Orr a patch bundle including your work. thank you, /ch --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
