Thanks for answering Christian, it made clear! I'll stay in stable 0.9* API. Anyway I found new deprecated flags, so I'm going to take a time to upgrade some examples and the documentation (e.g. using MHD_USE_INTERNAL_POLLING_THREAD instead of deprecated MHD_USE_SELECT_INTERNALLY etc.).
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 6:33 AM, Christian Grothoff <groth...@gnunet.org> wrote: > On 03/25/2018 04:05 AM, silvioprog wrote: > > Hello. > > > > I'm going to create a new project from scratch that uses MHD as main > > HTTP library, so I'm free to choose a new API. However, I have some > > questions that may help me to choose between microhttpd.h and > microhttpd2.h: > > > > * can I use the new API in production? (I'm following MHD changes, but > > I'm not sure about the new API development status) > > No. It compiles, but there are chunks of code missing to even get the > minimum things to work. > > > * will the previous API still receiving new features and updates? > > (specially for websockets) > > If necessary, sure. I expect to maintain both APIs for years in parallel. > > > * is there a tutorial or reference to study the new API? (this two > > documents of the previous API helped me a lot: 1 > > Not yet. > > > <https://www.gnu.org/software/libmicrohttpd/tutorial.html> / 2 > > <https://www.gnu.org/software/libmicrohttpd/manual/libmicrohttpd.html>) > > * is there examples or tests (even drafts) showing how to use the new > API? > > Not yet. > > > I'm OK to study (and contribute) the new API and I'm inclined to choose > > it because its simpler/friendly functions, MHD_Action etc., but if you > > don't recommend to use it for while I'm happy using the current stable > > API anyway. ;-) > > Always happy for contributions, and translating existing (old API) > testcases, examples and documentation to 'new API' would definitively be > a good starting point, but be aware that even if done correctly, the > code could not yet possibly work. > -- Silvio Clécio
