2013/1/12 Christian Grothoff <[email protected]>: > On 01/12/2013 06:04 PM, Sascha Swiercy wrote: >> 2013/1/12 Christian Grothoff <[email protected]>: >>> On 01/12/2013 12:56 PM, Sascha Swiercy wrote: >>>> Thank you for your answer. >>>> >>>> So regarding my second question, I think it's a good idea to simply >>>> pass the post data from MHD_get_connection_values to the callback of >>>> my post processor so I don't have to handle post data at two different >>>> places. >>> >>> You don't. Only if your client for some reason passes the data as part >>> of the URI arguments you need to worry about getting that data via >>> MHD_get_connection_values. >>> >>> -Christian >> >> Do you mean the case when the request method is POST but the URI >> contains arguments as if it would be a GET? > > Yes. > >> I tested this case but the >> URI arguments were stored with MHD_GET_ARGUMENT_KIND as usual. I also >> couldn't find the relevant lines in your source code that would store >> post data in a way that it can be retrieved using >> MHD_get_connection_values. So could you please explain this in detail? > > Yes, exactly; you would then get those using MHD_GET_ARGUMENT_KIND. > > -Christian
OK, thanks. Maybe my initial question was a bit confusing. What I actually wanted to know was whether something like MHD_get_connection_values(...,MHD_POSTDATA_KIND,...,...); makes sense or will ever call the iterator. The documentation for MHD_POSTDATA_KIND made me think it should, but I couldn't find an example where it actually does call the iterator. Sorry if this didn't become clear. Thanks again and best regards, Sascha
