RetroSearch Browse

Wed Dec 13 22:38:32 CET 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-December/070339.html

On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 10:00:48PM +0100, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote:
> Personally, I think very elaborate support for HTTP in httplib, and very
> few generalizations and abstractions in urllib* would be the "right"
> way to do it, IMO. For example, there might be the notion of an
> "http session" object where a single application request can resolve
> to multiple http requests (with redirection, authentication negotiation,
> cookies, 100 continue, implicit headers, etc).

   I see.

> For compatibility, urllib* can't drop features

   Leave it for py3k, then.

> and we'd need
> contributors who contribute such a refactoring

   That's the hardest part.

> If applications use urllib *only* for http, and
> *only* because it has these multi-request, implicit headers
> features, something is wrong with the abstractions.

   I think I agree.

Oleg.
-- 
     Oleg Broytmann            http://phd.pp.ru/            phd at phd.pp.ru
           Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-December/070339.html below:

[Python-Dev] Adding resume (206) support to urllib(2)