Pros of haipproxy

• More advanced proxy validation and scoring system
• Supports multiple proxy sources and protocols (HTTP, HTTPS, Socks4/5)
• Includes a web interface for easier management

Cons of haipproxy

• More complex setup and configuration
• Requires additional dependencies (e.g., Scrapy, Redis)
• Less frequently updated compared to proxy_pool

Code Comparison

proxy_pool:

def check_proxy(proxy):
    url = "http://www.baidu.com/get_ip.php"
    try:
        r = requests.get(url, proxies={"http": "http://" + proxy}, timeout=10, verify=False)
        if r.status_code == 200:
            return True
    except:
        return False

haipproxy:

def validate_proxy(proxy):
    start = time.time()
    try:
        r = requests.get(self.target_url, proxies={"http": proxy, "https": proxy},
                         timeout=self.timeout, verify=False)
        if r.ok:
            speed = time.time() - start
            return True, speed
    except:
        return False, None

The code comparison shows that haipproxy includes a more sophisticated proxy validation process, measuring response time and supporting both HTTP and HTTPS protocols. proxy_pool's implementation is simpler but less comprehensive.

Pros of ProxyPool

• More comprehensive documentation, including detailed setup instructions and API usage examples
• Supports multiple proxy sources and validation methods out of the box
• Includes a web interface for easy management and monitoring of the proxy pool

Cons of ProxyPool

• Slightly more complex setup process due to additional dependencies
• May have higher resource usage due to more extensive features

Code Comparison

proxy_pool:

def check_proxy(proxy):
    url = "http://www.baidu.com/get_ip.php"
    try:
        r = requests.get(url, proxies={"http": "http://" + proxy}, timeout=10, verify=False)
        if r.status_code == 200:
            return True
    except:
        return False

ProxyPool:

def check_proxy(proxy):
    try:
        resp = requests.get(self.test_url, proxies={
            'http': 'http://' + proxy,
            'https': 'https://' + proxy
        }, timeout=self.timeout, verify=False)
        if resp.status_code == 200:
            return True
    except (ProxyError, ConnectTimeout, SSLError, ReadTimeout):
        return False

Both projects aim to provide a pool of usable proxies, but ProxyPool offers a more feature-rich solution with better documentation. However, this comes at the cost of a slightly more complex setup and potentially higher resource usage. The code comparison shows that ProxyPool's proxy checking function is more comprehensive, handling both HTTP and HTTPS proxies and catching specific exceptions.

Pros of Scylla

• Written in Rust, offering better performance and memory safety
• Supports both IPv4 and IPv6 proxies
• Provides a RESTful API for easier integration

Cons of Scylla

• Less actively maintained (last update over 2 years ago)
• Fewer built-in proxy sources compared to proxy_pool
• Limited documentation and community support

Code Comparison

proxy_pool (Python):

def get_proxy():
    return self.db.pop()

def delete_proxy(proxy):
    self.db.delete(proxy)

Scylla (Rust):

pub fn get_proxy(&self) -> Option<Proxy> {
    self.proxies.pop_front()
}

pub fn delete_proxy(&mut self, proxy: &Proxy) {
    self.proxies.retain(|p| p != proxy);
}

Both projects aim to provide a pool of proxies, but they differ in implementation language and features. proxy_pool is written in Python and offers a wider range of proxy sources, making it more flexible for various use cases. It also has more recent updates and a larger community.

Scylla, on the other hand, leverages Rust's performance benefits and provides a RESTful API, which can be advantageous for certain applications. However, its development seems to have slowed down, potentially limiting its long-term viability.

The code comparison shows similar basic functionality for retrieving and deleting proxies, with Scylla's implementation benefiting from Rust's strong typing and memory safety features.

Pros of ipsum

• Focuses on IP blocklists for security purposes, providing a more specialized tool
• Regularly updated with new malicious IP addresses from various sources
• Lightweight and easy to integrate into existing security systems

Cons of ipsum

• Limited to IP blocklists, lacking the proxy pool functionality
• May require additional tools or scripts for implementation in certain use cases
• Less versatile compared to proxy_pool's broader proxy management features

Code comparison

ipsum:

#!/usr/bin/env python

import re
import sys

def addr_to_int(value):
    return struct.unpack("!I", socket.inet_aton(value))[0]

proxy_pool:

class ProxyPool(object):
    def __init__(self):
        self.pool = set()

    def add(self, proxy):
        self.pool.add(proxy)

    def remove(self, proxy):
        self.pool.discard(proxy)

The code snippets show that ipsum focuses on IP address manipulation, while proxy_pool manages a set of proxy addresses. This reflects their different purposes: ipsum for IP blocklists and proxy_pool for proxy management.