Congrats, Kenneth - Requests is a very nice library.<p>I've been using it a lot recently (though I've never had to go too deep into it). I'm impressed with the simplification and removal of code in this release. If only that was a goal for every project :)
The choice of Apache 2.0 for the license is interesting. It makes the library incompatible with GPLv2 software[1], but compatible with being integrated into the Python standard library[2].<p>[1] <a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2" rel="nofollow">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2</a><p>[2] <a href="http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonSoftwareFoundationLicenseFaq#line-75" rel="nofollow">http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonSoftwareFoundationLicenseF...</a>
Great work. It's a shame these nice libs weren't built a few years ago, they might have had a chance to become the default in python3. Would be a killer feature to push more people to it.<p><pre><code> "The entire codebase has been rearchitected"
</code></pre>
I hope there are a few tests to check for regressions? ;)
There's this interesting narrative that develops from time to time in Hacker News. Maybe it's just observer bias, but I had never heard of requests for Python until I read an article on HN about scraping, which in turn got me interested in Python, and now a week later a major release of Requests happens with a top story on HN.
Is the blog post the only direct documentation of what needs to change to upgrade to 1.0?<p>Details seem relatively scant. But maybe that's because response.json() is the only feature I'm using that changed...
Is the verbose mode still around? Not having any configuration is nice, but what replaces this?<p><pre><code> session.config['verbose'] = sys.stderr
</code></pre>
I couldn't find anything about it in the API docs.
Congrats, Kenneth!<p>Any hints on how to solve these incompatibilities between HTTPie and Requests v1.0 appreciated: <a href="https://github.com/jkbr/httpie/issues/113" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/jkbr/httpie/issues/113</a>.
Good job I guess (I use `requests` all the time and didn't even notice any issues, that's how neat it is). But the marketing-speak here makes my hair bristle!<p>"Requests is SEXY AWESOME!" "No wait, it's crap, complex, hard-to-follow code. But the NEW version is SEXY AWESOME!" (...at least until the next release, I suppose)
Can we all agree that it's a little weird to pause mid-article to fawn upon one's own code?<p>I love Kenneth Reitz and admire his skill but "come on, man."