anyproxy

Pros of mitmproxy

• More comprehensive feature set, including a console interface and web interface
• Better support for HTTP/2 and WebSockets
• More active development and larger community

Cons of mitmproxy

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex features
• Requires Python knowledge for scripting and customization

Code Comparison

mitmproxy (Python):

def request(flow):
    if flow.request.host == "example.com":
        flow.request.headers["Custom-Header"] = "Value"

AnyProxy (JavaScript):

module.exports = {
  *beforeSendRequest(requestDetail) {
    if (requestDetail.url.indexOf('example.com') > -1) {
      requestDetail.requestOptions.headers['Custom-Header'] = 'Value';
    }
    return requestDetail;
  }
};

Summary

mitmproxy offers a more powerful and feature-rich solution for intercepting and modifying HTTP/HTTPS traffic, with better support for modern protocols. It's ideal for advanced users and those comfortable with Python. AnyProxy, on the other hand, provides a simpler JavaScript-based approach, making it more accessible for web developers but with fewer advanced features. Both tools are effective for their intended use cases, with the choice depending on the user's specific requirements and technical background.

Pros of Whistle

• More comprehensive feature set, including a web-based interface for easier configuration and debugging
• Supports plugins for extended functionality
• Active development with frequent updates and bug fixes

Cons of Whistle

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex configuration options
• May be overkill for simpler proxy needs
• Slightly higher resource usage compared to AnyProxy

Code Comparison

Whistle configuration example:

# whistle.config
/api/ 127.0.0.1:8080
/static/ file:///Users/username/static/

AnyProxy configuration example:

// anyproxy.config.js
module.exports = {
  rule: {
    summary: 'my rule',
    *beforeSendRequest(requestDetail) {
      if (requestDetail.url.indexOf('/api/') > -1) {
        const newRequestOptions = requestDetail.requestOptions;
        newRequestOptions.hostname = '127.0.0.1';
        newRequestOptions.port = '8080';
        return { requestOptions: newRequestOptions };
      }
    }
  }
};

Both Whistle and AnyProxy are powerful HTTP proxy tools, but Whistle offers a more feature-rich experience with its web interface and plugin system. AnyProxy, on the other hand, provides a simpler approach with JavaScript-based rules, which may be preferable for users who are more comfortable with code-based configuration. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and your preferred workflow.

Pros of BrowserMob Proxy

• Written in Java, offering better integration with Java-based projects
• Provides a REST API for easier programmatic control
• Supports HAR (HTTP Archive) file generation out of the box

Cons of BrowserMob Proxy

• Less active development compared to AnyProxy
• Limited support for HTTPS interception without additional configuration
• Fewer built-in features for mobile device proxying

Code Comparison

AnyProxy (JavaScript):

const AnyProxy = require('anyproxy');
const options = {
  port: 8001,
  rule: require('./rule.js'),
  webInterface: {
    enable: true,
    webPort: 8002
  }
};
const proxyServer = new AnyProxy.ProxyServer(options);
proxyServer.start();

BrowserMob Proxy (Java):

BrowserMobProxy proxy = new BrowserMobProxyServer();
proxy.start(0);
int port = proxy.getPort();
Proxy seleniumProxy = ClientUtil.createSeleniumProxy(proxy);
DesiredCapabilities capabilities = new DesiredCapabilities();
capabilities.setCapability(CapabilityType.PROXY, seleniumProxy);

Both projects serve as HTTP/HTTPS proxies for intercepting and manipulating network traffic. AnyProxy, built with Node.js, offers more flexibility for JavaScript developers and has better support for mobile devices. BrowserMob Proxy, being Java-based, integrates well with Selenium WebDriver and provides built-in HAR generation. The choice between them depends on the specific project requirements and the preferred programming language.

Pros of Netty

• More mature and widely adopted project with a larger community
• Higher performance and scalability for network applications
• Supports a broader range of protocols and use cases

Cons of Netty

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity and extensive features
• Requires more boilerplate code for simple use cases

Code Comparison

AnyProxy (JavaScript):

const AnyProxy = require('anyproxy');
const options = {
  port: 8001,
  rule: require('./rule.js'),
  webInterface: {
    enable: true,
    webPort: 8002
  }
};
const proxyServer = new AnyProxy.ProxyServer(options);
proxyServer.start();

Netty (Java):

public class HttpServer {
    public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
        EventLoopGroup bossGroup = new NioEventLoopGroup(1);
        EventLoopGroup workerGroup = new NioEventLoopGroup();
        try {
            ServerBootstrap b = new ServerBootstrap();
            b.group(bossGroup, workerGroup)
             .channel(NioServerSocketChannel.class)
             .childHandler(new HttpServerInitializer());
            
            Channel ch = b.bind(8080).sync().channel();
            ch.closeFuture().sync();
        } finally {
            bossGroup.shutdownGracefully();
            workerGroup.shutdownGracefully();
        }
    }
}

The code examples demonstrate the basic setup for each project. AnyProxy focuses on simplicity for HTTP proxy creation, while Netty provides a more detailed, low-level approach for building network applications.

Pros of OkHttp

• More widely adopted and battle-tested in production environments
• Extensive documentation and community support
• Supports modern HTTP/2 and QUIC protocols

Cons of OkHttp

• Limited to Java and Android platforms
• Lacks built-in proxy functionality for intercepting and modifying requests/responses

Code Comparison

OkHttp:

OkHttpClient client = new OkHttpClient();
Request request = new Request.Builder()
  .url("https://api.example.com")
  .build();
Response response = client.newCall(request).execute();

AnyProxy:

const AnyProxy = require('anyproxy');
const options = {
  port: 8001,
  rule: require('./myRuleModule')
};
const proxyServer = new AnyProxy.ProxyServer(options);
proxyServer.start();

Key Differences

• OkHttp is primarily an HTTP client library, while AnyProxy is a full-featured proxy server
• AnyProxy offers more flexibility for intercepting and modifying HTTP/HTTPS traffic
• OkHttp provides better performance and is more suitable for mobile app development
• AnyProxy is written in JavaScript and runs on Node.js, making it more accessible for web developers

Use Cases

• Choose OkHttp for efficient HTTP client operations in Java/Android applications
• Opt for AnyProxy when you need a customizable proxy server for debugging or modifying network traffic

Pros of goproxy

• Written in Go, offering better performance and concurrency handling
• Lightweight and easy to integrate into existing Go applications
• Provides low-level control over HTTP/HTTPS traffic manipulation

Cons of goproxy

• Less feature-rich compared to AnyProxy's extensive toolset
• Lacks a built-in web interface for easy configuration and monitoring
• May require more manual coding for advanced use cases

Code Comparison

AnyProxy (JavaScript):

module.exports = {
  summary: 'my customized rule for AnyProxy',
  *beforeSendRequest(requestDetail) {
    if (requestDetail.url.indexOf('example.com') > -1) {
      const newRequestOptions = requestDetail.requestOptions;
      newRequestOptions.hostname = 'localhost';
      return { requestOptions: newRequestOptions };
    }
  },
};

goproxy (Go):

proxy := goproxy.NewProxyHttpServer()
proxy.OnRequest(goproxy.DstHostIs("example.com")).HandleConnect(goproxy.AlwaysMitm)
proxy.OnRequest().DoFunc(func(r *http.Request, ctx *goproxy.ProxyCtx) (*http.Request, *http.Response) {
    r.URL.Host = "localhost"
    return r, nil
})

Both examples show how to modify requests, but goproxy requires more explicit coding while AnyProxy offers a more declarative approach.