refactor: feedback on offset and count

[tac0turtle]

Description

this pr is meant to seek feedback on the removal of count and offset.

---

Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

• included the correct type prefix in the PR title
• added ! to the type prefix if API or client breaking change
• targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
• provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
• followed the guidelines for building modules
• included the necessary unit and integration tests
• added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
• included comments for documenting Go code
• updated the relevant documentation or specification
• reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
• run make lint and make test
• confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

• confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
• confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
• confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
• reviewed state machine logic
• reviewed API design and naming
• reviewed documentation is accurate
• reviewed tests and test coverage
• manually tested (if applicable)

[alpe]

Thanks for opening the issue!
I am very happy that pagination is revisited again. From my experience offset/ count are not really needed or expected by people in modern web applications anymore. Therefore a strict focus on server side performance makes a lot of sense.

On a bigger picture, I can imagine different query implementations that use the same pagination request/ response object. Therefore the key or nextKey should not be defined as a storage key only but may contain other encoded query data as well.

[tac0turtle]

talking to users it seems there are a lot of users of these. We should first provide an alternative before removing them. Ill open an issue