Pagination Laravel Package

Product Decisions This Supports

• Pagination UX strategy for list/table surfaces: Informs default page sizes, page-number vs. "load more" vs. infinite scroll, and whether pagination state lives in the URL (shareable, bookmarkable, SEO-friendly) or in client state. This package is a server-rendered, offset-based component, which implicitly endorses classic page-number contracts — a useful baseline to either adopt or deliberately reject.
• API response contract decisions: Whether list endpoints return page metadata (page, per_page, total, last_page) in the body or headers, and whether the backend or frontend owns pagination logic. Because it is offset-only with no JSON/API mode, evaluating it forces an explicit decision on the contract rather than a default.
• Build vs. buy for commodity primitives: Pagination is a solved, low-differentiation problem. The real decision is not "which pagination library" but "how much engineering time do we spend on primitives at all." The evaluation supports a standing default: use the framework's built-in, redirect saved time to differentiated features.
• Scope of framework standardization: Adopting a non-Laravel package here is really a decision about whether the product standardizes on Laravel's ecosystem (LengthAwarePaginator, CursorPaginator, Blade pagination views) or tolerates mixed-paradigm components. This package pushes toward the latter, which carries a real maintenance tax.
• Roadmap signal for data-heavy screens: If search results, admin tables, or activity feeds are on the roadmap, decide pagination strategy once — offset for bounded admin tables, cursor/keyset for unbounded feeds and public APIs — and apply it consistently, rather than letting each team pick a library.
• Supply-chain and risk posture: A near-zero-adoption dependency (1 star, 0 dependents, no release cadence) is a useful test case for whether the org's dependency-hygiene bar is being applied consistently to "small" packages.
• Not a differentiator: No roadmap slot should be allocated to pagination tooling beyond the framework default. It is table stakes, not a feature.

When to Consider This Package

Consider it only under narrow conditions:

• You are already on MindyPHP (or a similar lightweight, non-Laravel PHP micro-framework) and need a ready-made pagination component with an MIT license and no framework lock-in. In that case it is a reasonable, zero-cost convenience — the risk is inherited from the framework choice, not this package.
• You need a trivially small, dependency-free renderer for a legacy or hand-rolled PHP app where pulling in a full framework or a package with a heavy dependency tree is undesirable.
• You are evaluating it as reference code — reading a compact pagination implementation to inform your own — rather than depending on it.

Look elsewhere when:

• You are on Laravel. Laravel ships paginate(), simplePaginate(), cursorPaginate(), and Blade pagination views out of the box. This package has no ServiceProvider, no Illuminate\Contracts\Pagination implementations, and no Blade views; it would sit beside the native paginator as a competing, incompatible abstraction with zero functional gain.
• You need cursor/keyset pagination for large or fast-changing datasets — offset pagination degrades badly and produces duplicate or skipped rows under concurrent writes. This package is offset-only as far as anyone can verify.
• You need API/JSON pagination, SPA/Inertia integration, or frontend-driven pagination. This is a server-rendered component.
• You require adoption signals, security review, or long-term support. With 1 GitHub star, 0 dependents, and no visible release cadence, there is effectively no community, no CVE-watch, and no bus factor beyond the author. For anything customer-facing or long-lived, that is supply-chain exposure you cannot mitigate.
• You need accessibility or design-system compliance for the rendered controls (ARIA labels, keyboard nav, tokenized styling). The markup is likely Bootstrap-era and you will be reimplementing it anyway.
• You need predictable builds. The artifact is likely a subtree split of the MindyPHP monorepo; it may lag the canonical source, may be force-pushed, and may resolve only as an untagged dev-master.

How to Pitch It (Stakeholders)

For executives: This is a small, MIT-licensed pagination widget belonging to a niche PHP micro-framework. It is not a strategic asset and does not warrant investment or a migration. Our recommendation is to not adopt it for our Laravel codebase: Laravel already provides production-grade pagination at zero marginal cost, and adding a package with a single star and no downstream users introduces maintenance and supply-chain exposure for a capability we already own. The business value of this evaluation is confirming a "no-build, use-the-default" decision and redirecting that effort toward features customers actually notice.

For engineering: Pagination is a commodity; treat it as configuration, not architecture. Standardize on Laravel's native paginator — offset for bounded admin tables, cursor for unbounded feeds and public APIs — define one response contract for paginated JSON, and keep pagination state in the query string so links are shareable. Where pagination is cross-cutting, depend on Illuminate\Contracts\Pagination\LengthAwarePaginator so any future swap is a container binding, not a refactor. If the Mindy behavior has specific value (e.g., a particular windowed page-number convention), port the 50–100 lines you need under MIT attribution and own them as a Blade component. If a genuine MindyPHP dependency forces adoption, treat it as a fork: pin to a commit SHA, vendor it, assign an internal owner, and schedule an annual review — and never run two pagination paradigms side by side in the same codebase.