removing part 3 makes a lot of sense to me

for similar reasoning I wonder if "part 2" makes a lot of sense (didactically wise) - I see we want to teach users how to connect to WiFi and to make it more interesting we also show how to send sensor data via http - but in the part we throw that away and replace it with MQTT and we show using HTTP again in part 🤷‍♂️

for similar reasoning I wonder if "part 2" makes a lot of sense (didactically wise) - I see we want to teach users how to connect to WiFi and to make it more interesting we also show how to send sensor data via http - but in the part we throw that away and replace it with MQTT and we show using HTTP again in part 🤷‍♂️

I think if we remove part2 and include its content in part3, part3 will become hard to digest, imho having the two parts its better, although we could improve the http story.

cc: @MabezDev @jessebraham

we could improve the http story

At least we'd need a real endpoint that is doing something useful with that data - then in the next part we could explain why http is not ideal for this kind of data (overhead yadda yadda) and why MQTT is a better fit for this (and also sneak peek where it might be useful later) ... then I'd agree to keep it

UPD: but I guess we will see how things work out once we have the content describing it

we could improve the http story

At least we'd need a real endpoint that is doing something useful with that data - then in the next part we could explain why http is not ideal for this kind of data (overhead yadda yadda) and why MQTT is a better fit for this (and also sneak peek where it might be useful later) ... then I'd agree to keep it

UPD: but I guess we will see how things work out once we have the content describing it

I think we can easily do something interesting with the data when we solve #87. We can at least print the received data.

Imo let's keep the structure as is, I think it flows quite well. We can supplement "boring" parts without too much change on either the code or writing side.