Noob question: what's the purpose of having so many request libraries? In JavaScript it's crazy, but in Python it's starting to feel the same: requests, httpx, httpx2...
From my perspective, HTTP requests have been mastered for years (decades?). What's the point of switching libraries? What's so extraordinary about the new HTTP library that makes requests look crap?
I understand that new protocols appear from time to time (like HTTP/2), but that's very rare. And if there are performance differences between two libraries, are they really that huge? Even if they are, 99% of people don't need that boost. What prevents someone from just improving the existing library's performance?
`requests` has a friendlier API than the standard library. However, it does not support newer versions of HTTP, nor does it support `async`. The maintainer considers it complete, feature-frozen software, IIRC - they'd rather keep it stable for existing users and let other libraries succeed it.
`aiohttp` supports `async` but was never popular for non-async
`httpx` supported newer HTTP versions and both async and non-async. However the maintainer decided to close all outside submissions, issues and discussions for personal reasons.
'urllib3' completely saved me once. We had to authenticate with the border proxy using a certificate, then make a request to a web service ... that needed authenticating with a certificate. Urllib3 was the only one that could do it.
>`httpx` supported newer HTTP versions and both async and non-async. However the maintainer decided to close all outside submissions, issues and discussions for personal reasons.
how can something like this happen? and which positive consequence there can be out of that?
Specifically in this case, the consensus seems to be the maintainer is having some mental health struggles and chose to close out outside contribution.
only problem I have and that's probably why I didn't associate it directly myself is that I see the example very valid for many other FOSS cases.
but in this case it feels like the part at the bottom is made of multiple random persons, not a single one, and one of those random persons decided to exclude all the other random persons.
so maybe the lower layer shall be represented as made of multiple pieces that fight each other, beside the all modern shit on top of it.
HTTP is a pretty complex space once you get into the nitty-gritty of use-cases, common request handling patterns & conditional/dynamic header-definitions. In general this leads to:
- (a) built-ins (& some libraries) being very verbose to use because they tend to take a "fundamentals of HTTP" approach & not implement shortcuts/common patterns
- (b) libraries commonly falling into the trap of going the opposite direction & ending up with massive scope-creep and/or oversimplified, un-expressive APIs.
This leads to a churn of libraries due to developers yearning for a Goldilocks implementation in between.
Javascript tends to be ahead of other ecosystems in churn due to ease of library publishing, Python's catching up, but overall it's the same pattern in both.
---
Also, one big additional factor is async:
- NodeJS built-ins implemented a callback pattern just before promises took off, & have struggled to upgrade to promises cleanly without breaking backward compat.
- Python's got a similar story with various generations of http library being sync, or relying on different async approaches in confusing ways.
There can be different APIs or different technical implementations with certain performance characteristics. In this case, there isn't any purpose, though. It's just that development has slowed or stopped on the previous libraries and forking/renaming is easier than trying to continue the previous projects, for various reasons.
I would been pleased to see this project named something else, maybe “httpx-ng” or “httpy” as I immediately link “http*2” with the obsolete http/2 protocol and not the httpx project.
Yep. All HTTP/2 features are subsumed by HTTP/3 and all HTTP/2 deployments should be focusing their effort on moving to HTTP/3.
HTTP/2 is full of growing pains and fiddly kernel config for it to perform better than even HTTP/1.1.
Moving these dependencies into userland was the path that HTTP/3 took and it has proven itself through CDN and browser adoption for years now.
I’d go as far as to say that we need to reevaluate the event loops in nginx and elsewhere to assume UDP and HTTP/3 framing instead of TCP. There are gains to be had.
HTTP/3 is fundamentally a different architecture than /2. To fully embrace it requires rethinking backend design significantly; just bumping a version number on HTTP without utilizing the intention of the spec is incorrect.
HTTP/1.x is not obsolete. It fills a very relevant request structure that most of the Internet still runs on.
Seems like the major gripe is over my usage of the word “obsolete” instead of “deprecated”. We could all be flipping switches instead of tapping on MacBooks but you gotta draw a line somewhere.
Hmm, I'd define that as "deprecated", not "obsolete". Many extant H2 deployments are stable and performant, and if they're eg fronted by an H3 CDN, the migration ROI might be questionable. /$.02
Context: spent my career building CDNs at Cloudflare/facebook/pinterest.
The h3 juice is worth the squeeze. 0rtt TLS, BBR, HPACK, etc. You can roughly achieve this with a carefully configured h2 deployment across multiple layers and packages or just move to h3 and let the app layer handle it all. We baked all of the best practices into h3, the world just needs to move on.
There is already a popular project called httpie, so httpy would be really confusing in non written form. Beside that, i completely agree, the name could be better.
I searched and searched for way too long and could not find any information on whether or not aiohttp supports HTTP/2 or 3... do you know or have any reference that explains what all is supported?
Noob question: what's the purpose of having so many request libraries? In JavaScript it's crazy, but in Python it's starting to feel the same: requests, httpx, httpx2...
From my perspective, HTTP requests have been mastered for years (decades?). What's the point of switching libraries? What's so extraordinary about the new HTTP library that makes requests look crap?
I understand that new protocols appear from time to time (like HTTP/2), but that's very rare. And if there are performance differences between two libraries, are they really that huge? Even if they are, 99% of people don't need that boost. What prevents someone from just improving the existing library's performance?
`requests` has a friendlier API than the standard library. However, it does not support newer versions of HTTP, nor does it support `async`. The maintainer considers it complete, feature-frozen software, IIRC - they'd rather keep it stable for existing users and let other libraries succeed it.
`aiohttp` supports `async` but was never popular for non-async
`httpx` supported newer HTTP versions and both async and non-async. However the maintainer decided to close all outside submissions, issues and discussions for personal reasons.
`httpx2` is a maintained fork of `httpx`
'urllib3' completely saved me once. We had to authenticate with the border proxy using a certificate, then make a request to a web service ... that needed authenticating with a certificate. Urllib3 was the only one that could do it.
I've had to do similar in the past, and also wound up on urllib3.
Thanks for the explanation !
Also niquests as well which is a dropin replacement and imo wayyy better than httpx
niquest is something like a one-man-show, which is an issue-per-se
Of course, it is clearly superior to everything else (being authored by a french guy !). But sadly, some people do not accept this simple fact :(
“Niquer” means “to f*ck” in French slang
And why don't people use pycurl? Curl is the king of the hill...
There are tradeoffs to the non-Python HTTP libraries like pycurl and pyreqwests, namely:
- Non-portability to alternative Python implementations or environments without the supporting C libraries
- Less visibility into the client internals (for debugging etc)
Thx!
thanks for the summary.
>`httpx` supported newer HTTP versions and both async and non-async. However the maintainer decided to close all outside submissions, issues and discussions for personal reasons.
how can something like this happen? and which positive consequence there can be out of that?
> how can something like this happen?
https://xkcd.com/2347
Specifically in this case, the consensus seems to be the maintainer is having some mental health struggles and chose to close out outside contribution.
ohh thanks for that xkcd! totally right!
only problem I have and that's probably why I didn't associate it directly myself is that I see the example very valid for many other FOSS cases.
but in this case it feels like the part at the bottom is made of multiple random persons, not a single one, and one of those random persons decided to exclude all the other random persons.
so maybe the lower layer shall be represented as made of multiple pieces that fight each other, beside the all modern shit on top of it.
HTTP is a pretty complex space once you get into the nitty-gritty of use-cases, common request handling patterns & conditional/dynamic header-definitions. In general this leads to:
- (a) built-ins (& some libraries) being very verbose to use because they tend to take a "fundamentals of HTTP" approach & not implement shortcuts/common patterns
- (b) libraries commonly falling into the trap of going the opposite direction & ending up with massive scope-creep and/or oversimplified, un-expressive APIs.
This leads to a churn of libraries due to developers yearning for a Goldilocks implementation in between.
Javascript tends to be ahead of other ecosystems in churn due to ease of library publishing, Python's catching up, but overall it's the same pattern in both.
---
Also, one big additional factor is async:
- NodeJS built-ins implemented a callback pattern just before promises took off, & have struggled to upgrade to promises cleanly without breaking backward compat.
- Python's got a similar story with various generations of http library being sync, or relying on different async approaches in confusing ways.
There can be different APIs or different technical implementations with certain performance characteristics. In this case, there isn't any purpose, though. It's just that development has slowed or stopped on the previous libraries and forking/renaming is easier than trying to continue the previous projects, for various reasons.
Async ruins everything, as usual.
[flagged]
I would been pleased to see this project named something else, maybe “httpx-ng” or “httpy” as I immediately link “http*2” with the obsolete http/2 protocol and not the httpx project.
By what definition is HTTP/2 considered obsolete? Are you suggesting it's been supplanted by H3?
(FWIW I agree w/ your objection to the "httpx2" name.)
Yep. All HTTP/2 features are subsumed by HTTP/3 and all HTTP/2 deployments should be focusing their effort on moving to HTTP/3.
HTTP/2 is full of growing pains and fiddly kernel config for it to perform better than even HTTP/1.1.
Moving these dependencies into userland was the path that HTTP/3 took and it has proven itself through CDN and browser adoption for years now.
I’d go as far as to say that we need to reevaluate the event loops in nginx and elsewhere to assume UDP and HTTP/3 framing instead of TCP. There are gains to be had.
HTTP/3 is fundamentally a different architecture than /2. To fully embrace it requires rethinking backend design significantly; just bumping a version number on HTTP without utilizing the intention of the spec is incorrect.
HTTP/1.x is not obsolete. It fills a very relevant request structure that most of the Internet still runs on.
Seems like the major gripe is over my usage of the word “obsolete” instead of “deprecated”. We could all be flipping switches instead of tapping on MacBooks but you gotta draw a line somewhere.
Hmm, I'd define that as "deprecated", not "obsolete". Many extant H2 deployments are stable and performant, and if they're eg fronted by an H3 CDN, the migration ROI might be questionable. /$.02
Context: spent my career building CDNs at Cloudflare/facebook/pinterest.
The h3 juice is worth the squeeze. 0rtt TLS, BBR, HPACK, etc. You can roughly achieve this with a carefully configured h2 deployment across multiple layers and packages or just move to h3 and let the app layer handle it all. We baked all of the best practices into h3, the world just needs to move on.
[dead]
There is already a popular project called httpie, so httpy would be really confusing in non written form. Beside that, i completely agree, the name could be better.
https://httpie.io/
I agree, the brain built in error correction makes it harder to read
httpy is actually twofold cool for a Python HTTP client!
Agreed! I love naming things :D
Ruby has httparty. https://github.com/jnunemaker/httparty
People should be aware how much worse HTTPX performs versus Aiohttp. For high scale systems it makes a massive difference
pyreqwest has been delightful so far: https://github.com/MarkusSintonen/pyreqwest
It's been a pleasure to use, has a httpx compatibility layer, and it's fast (https://github.com/MarkusSintonen/pyreqwest/blob/main/docs/b...)
I searched and searched for way too long and could not find any information on whether or not aiohttp supports HTTP/2 or 3... do you know or have any reference that explains what all is supported?
It does not: https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/issues/5999
I can attest of that, and in addition of harmful decisions of the maintainer that are loaded foot guns...
AIUI the fork has better performance.
I keep confusing aiortc and aoc
[dead]
Everytime someone is using httpx I always wonder why use that especially when niquests exists? I feel like it has always been such a better package
Also see the user’s other submission https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49477212
“OpenAI: Migrating to HTTPX2” (github.com/openai)
66 points | 1 hour ago | 50 comments
HTTPX2 isn't a great name for a fork (or at all). Just leads to more confusion.
Nevertheless, I'm curious about the pros and cons when comparing with "niquests".
I thought we all moved over to Niquests and/or aiocquic and HTTP/3 these days.
aiohttp vs httpx2?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49478655
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49479566
[flagged]
Cool project bro