4 ms·

Recommended alternative: https://www.python-httpx.org https://www.python-httpx.org

• mikkelam 4y ago
  Yep! I've been using httpx for all my projects and several are in production. It's a great replacement
  • marban 4y ago
    Too bad you'll still end up with requests as part of some other package's dependency most of the time.
• raverbashing 4y ago
  This is a bit ridiculous (not the library, the situation) Why do we have to reinvent the wheel every couple of years? As much as this lib looks fine, I'd be sticking with requests if it still keeps getting fixes And of course the beauty of open source is that I can fork the project and add a fix if I need. It's great that HttpX uses the same API apparently, but you know, there's always some rough corner somewhere and of course your project hits it. Of course. Software maintenance is already annoying without having to update libraries every now and then. Now having to replace a library is even more problematic
  • julianwachholz 4y ago
    requests has laid all the groundwork for httpx to be able to even exist. the new library is a natural evolution that for example features full async support, which I don't think will ever be added to requests.
• wheelerof4te 4y ago
  Depending on your needs, urllib might be good enough.
  • declnz 4y ago
    Yes this. I feel people avoid it because of inertia, but I've started using it by default now, and typically only adds a few lines of code. (old) batteries included etc etc There's also https://docs.python.org/3/library/http.client.html https://docs.python.org/3/library/http.client.html, which ironically refers people over to requests anyway...
  • gabrielsroka 4y ago
    Yes! https://github.com/gabrielsroka/r https://github.com/gabrielsroka/r
• rmbyrro 4y ago
  Funny thing is they chose the exact same domain structure, which reminds me that httpx may eventually end up like this ridiculous requests situation...