[RESOLVED] Confusion on implementing Weedpackets Pagination with a slight twist.

dmacman1962

Hi Everyone,

I have been reading all the pagination links I can find, and specifically honed in on weedpackets solution (who else has an IQ like him 🙂 ) and I cannot begin to use his method with my requirements in this case.

Here is the link.

His solution will display the layout, but not let me break apart the results based on a field type.

IE,

His (awesome) solution would let me layout the page like this.

1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10

But I need the left 2 columns to be DVDs (items 1,2,5,6,9,10 in this case) (TypeID=0) and the right 2 columns, to be non-DVDs (Items 3,4,7,8) (TypeID=1).

Obviously the products are sortable by TypeID, but I cannot seem to modify his solution with that in mind.

For neatness sake, the left columns will always have more items, so the final displayed layout will not be right-side heavy.

I appreciate any help on this at all.

Thanks,
Don

pete_bisby

So what you're after is, essentially, two sets of information; left side are DVDs (TypeID=0), and right side are non-DVDs (TypeID=1). Both sets have two columns ....

.... I would, personally, use nested tables to display the information.

<table>  // outside table
  <tr><td>
    <table> // inner table holding DVD info
    ...
    </table>
  </td><td>
    <table>  // inner table holding non-DVD info
    ...
    </table>
  </td></tr>
</table>

You can still use the pagination that Weedpacket defined, but just for 2 columns instead of 3 as in his example.

dmacman1962

Hi Pete,

Actually I ended up doing just that and it will work, I was hoping to be able to do it without 2 loops (and queries), but whatever works.

So I guess my solution (IE and yours) tells me I was at least on the correct path.

Thanks for your help,
Don

Weedpacket

Actually I ended up doing just that and it will work, I was hoping to be able to do it without 2 loops (and queries), but whatever works.

Well, you could use one query that populates two arrays (each record going in one array or the other depending on the value of one of its fields); and have the two-column table generation code in a function which you call twice, passing it a different array each time.... and you're back to one loop and one query.

It could be done as one table, but the hairiness around what to do towards the bottom when you start running out of entries means that the two-table approach would be more legible (and visually indistinguishable depending on styling).

dmacman1962

Seriously, Weedpacket, are you willing to share what your IQ is?

I mean, I am 45 and have met a LOT of smart people, and by far, you are the most intelligent, and are the easiest person to ask a question, and know you will get THE correct answer, I have ever come across! Period.

Being from a smaller town (pop. less than 1/2 mill) the internet has given people like me reasonable access to people such as yourself. Please don't take this wrong, but, I thank the Lord for creating people like you!

Bless you,

Don