Comment by maccard

2 months ago

> Then I found out it was broken. I contributed a fix. The fix was ignored and there was never any release since November 2024.

This seems like a pretty good reason to fork to me.

> Sending HTTP requests is a basic capability in the modern world, the standard library should include a friendly, fully-featured, battle-tested, async-ready client. But not in Python,

Or Javascript (well node), or golang (http/net is _worse_ than urllib IMO), Rust , Java (UrlRequest is the same as python's), even dotnet's HttpClient is... fine.

Honestly the thing that consistently surprises me is that requests hasn't been standardised and brought into the standard library

What, Go's net/http is fantastic. I don't understand that take. Many servers are built on it because it's so fully featured out of the box.

Your java knowledge is outdated. Java's JDK has a nice, modern HTTP Client https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/11/docs/api/java.net....

  • Ahh, java. You never change, even if you're modern

        HttpClient client = HttpClient.newBuilder()
            .version(Version.HTTP_1_1)
            .followRedirects(Redirect.NORMAL)
            .connectTimeout(Duration.ofSeconds(20))
            .proxy(ProxySelector.of(
               new InetSocketAddress("proxy.example.com", 80)
            ))
            .authenticator(Authenticator.getDefault())
            .build();
    
           HttpResponse<String> response = client.send(request, BodyHandlers.ofString());
    
           System.out.println(response.statusCode());
           System.out.println(response.body());
    

    For the record, you're most likely not even interacting with that API directly if you're using any current framework, because most just provide automagically generated clients and you only define the interface with some annotations

    • Your http client setup is over-complicated. You certainly don't need `.proxy` if you are not using a proxy or if you are using the system default proxy, nor do you need `.authenticator` if you are not doing HTTP authentication. Nor do you need `version` since there is already a fallback to HTTP/1.1.

        HttpClient client = HttpClient.newBuilder()
          .followRedirects(Redirect.NORMAL)
          .connectTimeout(Duration.ofSeconds(20))
          .build();

      4 replies →

What's wrong with Go's? I've never had any issues with it. Go has some of the best http batteries included of any language

  • Go's net/http Client is built for functionality and complete support of the protocol, including even such corner cases as support for trailer headers: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Reference/... Which for a lot of people reading this message is probably the first time they've heard of this.

    It is not built for convenience. It has no methods for simply posting JSON, or marshaling a JSON response from a body automatically, no "fluent" interface, no automatic method for dealing with querystring parameters in a URL, no direct integration with any particular authentication/authorization scheme (other than Basic Authentication, which is part of the protocol). It only accepts streams for request bodys and only yields streams for response bodies, and while this is absolutely correct for a low-level library and any "request" library that mandates strings with no ability to stream in either direction is objectively wrong, it is a rather nice feature to have available when you know the request or response is going to be small. And so on and so on.

    There's a lot of libraries you can grab that will fix this, if you care, everything from clones of the request library, to libraries designed explicitly to handle scraping cases, and so on. And that is in some sense also exactly why the net/http client is designed the way it is. It's designed to be in the standard library, where it can be indefinitely supported because it just reflects the protocol as directly as possible, and whatever whims of fate or fashion roll through the developer community as to the best way to make web requests may be now or in the future, those things can build on the solid foundation of net/http's Request and Response values.

    Python is in fact a pretty good demonstration of the risks of trying to go too "high level" in such a client in the standard library.

  • I guess he never used Fiber's APIs lol

    The stdlib may not be the best, but the fact all HTTP libs that matter are compatible with net/http is great for DX and the ecosystem at large.

    • Thr comment I replied to was talking about sending a http requests. Go’s server side net/http is excellent, the client side is clunky verbose and suffers from many of the problems that Python’s urllib does.

>Honestly the thing that consistently surprises me is that requests hasn't been standardised and brought into the standard library

Instead, official documentation seems comfortable with recommending a third party package: https://docs.python.org/3/library/urllib.request.html#module...

>The Requests package is recommended for a higher-level HTTP client interface.

Which was fine when requests were the de-facto-standard only player in town, but at some point modern problems (async, http2) required modern solutions (httpx) and thus ecosystem fragmentation began.

  • Well, the reason for all the fragmentation is because the Python stdlib doesn't have the core building blocks for an async http or http2 client in the way requests could build on urllib.

    The h11, h2, httpcore stack is probably the closest thing to what the Python stdlib should look like to end the fragmentation but it would be a huge undertaking for the core devs.

    • > but it would be a huge undertaking for the core devs.

      More importantly, it would be massively breaking to remove the existing functionality (and everyone would ignore a deprecation), and confusing not to (much like it was when 2.x had both "urllib" and "urllib2").

      It'd be nice to have something high level in the standard library based on urllib primitives. Offering competition to those, not so much.

> dotnet's HttpClient is... fine.

Yes, and it's in the standard library (System namespace). Being Microsoft they've if anything over-featured it.

  • It's fine but it's sharp-edged, in that it's recommended to use IHttpClientFactory to avoid the dual problem of socket exhaustion ( if creating/destroying lots of HttpClients ) versus DNS caching outliving DNS ( if using a very long-lived singleton HttpClient ).

    And while this article [1] says "It's been around for a while", it was only added in .NET Framework 4.5, which shows it took a while for the API to stabilise. There were other ways to make web requests before that of course, and also part of the standard library, and it's never been "difficult" to do so, but there is a history prior to HttpClient of changing ways to do requests.

    For modern dotnet however it's all pretty much a solved problem, and there's only ever been HttpClient and a fairly consistent story of how to use it.

    [1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/extensions/htt...

requests is some janky layer onto of other janky layers. last thing you want in the stdlib.

it's called the STD lib for a reason...