Closed
Conversation
Contributor
|
Interesting. 🤔 |
Contributor
|
From a little bit of thinking over... My natural inclination here would be to prefer #1399 on the basis of consistency.
|
Contributor
Author
|
@tomchristie Yeah, upon reviewing again I'm actually on the same boat. :-) |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #1302
Alternative to #1399
Instead of adding new classes (
HTTPTransport,AsyncHTTPTransport), we focus on the "provide defaults" part by providing "factory helpers", rather than wrapper classes. I think that might be lower-maintenance, but also it's more easily testable since we have a direct access to the HTTPCore default transport object.Also contains unit tests, and an integration test for the "disable HTTP/2 on a single domain" use case.
I'm also on the fence wrt— Switched to explicit params.**kwargsversus explicit parameters. Perhaps the latter?proxy=...parameter tocreate_default_transport(), that would switch between returning a connection pool or a proxy pool. But at the same time, it's not clear to me which use cases aproxy=...parameter would allow solving that's not already solvable through theproxies=...routing and theProxyconfig class… Well, obviously there's customizingmax_keepalive_connectionsand the like, but that's super-low-level, so… Leaving it out for now.