El dom, 6 feb 2022 a las 9:12, Paul Moore (<p.f.mo...@gmail.com>) escribió:
> On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 at 16:51, Christian Heimes <christ...@python.org> > wrote: > > > The urllib package -- and to some degree also the http package -- are > > constant source of security bugs. The code is old and the parsers for > > HTTP and URLs don't handle edge cases well. Python core lacks a true > > maintainer of the code. To be honest, we have to admit defeat and be up > > front that urllib is not up to the task for this decade. It was designed > > written during a more friendly, less scary time on the internet. > > > > If I had the power and time, then I would replace urllib with a simpler, > > reduced HTTP client that uses platform's HTTP library under the hood > > (WinHTTP on Windows, NSURLSession (?) on macOS, Web API for Emscripten, > > maybe curl on Linux/BSD). For non-trivial HTTP requests, httpx or > > aiohttp are much better suited than urllib. > > > > The second best option is to reduce the feature set of urllib to core > > HTTP (no ftp, proxy, HTTP auth) and a partial rewrite with stricter, > > more standard conform parsers for urls, query strings, and RFC 2822 > > instead of RFC 822 for headers. > > I'd likely be fine with either of these two options. I'm not worried > about supporting "advanced" uses. But having no way of getting a file > from the internet without relying on 3rd party packages seems like a > huge gap in functionality for a modern language. And having to use a > 3rd party library to parse URLs will simply push more people to use > home-grown regexes rather than something safe and correct. Remember > that a lot of Python users are not professional software developers, > but scientists, data analysts, and occasional users, for whom the > existence of something in the stdlib is the *only* reason they have > any idea that URLs need specialised parsing in the first place. > > And while we all like to say 3rd party modules are great, the reality > is that they provide a genuine problem for many of these > non-specialist users - and I say that as a packaging specialist and > pip maintainer. The packaging ecosystem is *not* newcomer-friendly in > the way that core Python is, much as we're trying to improve that > situation. > > I've said it previously, but I'll reiterate - IMO this *must* have a > PEP, and that PEP must be clear that the intention is to *remove* > urllib, not simply to "deprecate and then think about it". That could > be making it part of PEP 594, or a separate PEP, but one way or > another it needs a PEP. > PEP 594 is meant to be a set of uncontroversial removals of mostly unused modules. Removing urllib is obviously not going to be uncontroversial, so it should be discussed in a separate PEP. > > Paul > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org > To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ > Message archived at > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/KT6TGUBTLLETHES2OVVGZWSGYC5JCEKC/ > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/HQ5J7BTB5WW77CQIQXX5FQKBOOIADBYR/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
