Pros of httpx

• More active development and maintenance
• Supports both sync and async APIs
• Extensive feature set including HTTP/2 and WebSocket support

Cons of httpx

• Larger dependency footprint
• Slightly steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

httpx:

import httpx

with httpx.Client() as client:
    response = client.get('https://example.com')
    print(response.text)

hyper:

from hyper import HTTPConnection

conn = HTTPConnection('example.com:443')
conn.request('GET', '/')
resp = conn.get_response()
print(resp.read())

Key Differences

• httpx provides a more user-friendly API, similar to the popular requests library
• hyper focuses specifically on HTTP/2 implementation, while httpx offers broader protocol support
• httpx has better documentation and a larger community, making it easier to find help and resources

Use Cases

• Choose httpx for general-purpose HTTP client needs, especially if you require both sync and async options
• Consider hyper if you need a lightweight, HTTP/2-focused solution and are comfortable with a lower-level API

Community and Ecosystem

httpx has gained significant traction and is often recommended as a modern alternative to the requests library, while hyper remains a more specialized tool for HTTP/2 implementations.

Pros of urllib3

• Widely adopted and battle-tested in production environments
• Extensive feature set, including connection pooling and retry mechanisms
• Compatible with both Python 2 and 3

Cons of urllib3

• Lacks native HTTP/2 support
• Slower performance compared to hyper for certain use cases
• More complex API for advanced features

Code Comparison

urllib3:

import urllib3

http = urllib3.PoolManager()
r = http.request('GET', 'http://example.com')
print(r.status)
print(r.data)

hyper:

from hyper import HTTPConnection

conn = HTTPConnection('http://example.com')
conn.request('GET', '/')
resp = conn.get_response()
print(resp.status)
print(resp.read())

Key Differences

• hyper focuses on HTTP/2 support, while urllib3 primarily targets HTTP/1.1
• urllib3 offers more built-in features like connection pooling and retries
• hyper provides a simpler API for basic HTTP requests
• urllib3 has broader compatibility across Python versions
• hyper may offer better performance for HTTP/2 connections

Both libraries have their strengths, with urllib3 being more versatile and widely used, while hyper excels in HTTP/2 scenarios and offers a streamlined API for simple use cases.

Pros of Requests

• Widely adopted and battle-tested in production environments
• Extensive documentation and large community support
• Simple and intuitive API for making HTTP requests

Cons of Requests

• Lacks native support for HTTP/2
• Not as performant for high-concurrency scenarios
• Limited support for advanced features like server push

Code Comparison

Requests:

import requests

response = requests.get('https://api.example.com/data')
print(response.json())

Hyper:

from hyper import HTTPConnection

conn = HTTPConnection('api.example.com:443')
conn.request('GET', '/data')
resp = conn.get_response()
print(resp.read())

Hyper focuses on providing HTTP/2 support, offering improved performance for certain use cases. It's designed for developers who need more control over low-level HTTP operations. Requests, on the other hand, offers a higher-level abstraction that's easier to use for common HTTP tasks.

While Requests is more popular and has a larger ecosystem, Hyper is better suited for applications that require HTTP/2 features or need to handle a large number of concurrent connections efficiently.

Pros of aiohttp

• More mature and widely adopted project with a larger community
• Supports both client and server-side HTTP functionality
• Extensive documentation and examples available

Cons of aiohttp

• Slightly more complex API compared to hyper
• Larger codebase, which may lead to longer startup times

Code Comparison

aiohttp client example:

async with aiohttp.ClientSession() as session:
    async with session.get('http://example.com') as response:
        html = await response.text()
        print(html)

hyper client example:

with HTTP20Connection('http2bin.org') as conn:
    response = conn.request('GET', '/get')
    print(response.read())

Key Differences

• aiohttp uses asyncio for asynchronous operations, while hyper focuses on HTTP/2 support
• hyper is more lightweight and specifically designed for HTTP/2, while aiohttp offers broader HTTP functionality
• aiohttp provides both client and server capabilities, whereas hyper is primarily client-focused

Use Cases

• Choose aiohttp for general-purpose async HTTP client/server needs in Python
• Opt for hyper when working specifically with HTTP/2 or requiring a lightweight HTTP client

Both libraries have their strengths, and the choice depends on your specific project requirements and preferences.

Pros of grequests

• Simpler API, easier to use for basic concurrent requests
• Built on top of the popular requests library, familiar to many Python developers
• Lightweight and focused on asynchronous HTTP requests

Cons of grequests

• Less feature-rich compared to Hyper's HTTP/2 support
• Not actively maintained, with fewer recent updates
• Limited to HTTP/1.1 protocol

Code Comparison

grequests:

import grequests

urls = ['http://example.com', 'http://example.org']
rs = (grequests.get(u) for u in urls)
responses = grequests.map(rs)

Hyper:

from hyper import HTTPConnection

conn = HTTPConnection('example.com:443')
conn.request('GET', '/')
resp = conn.get_response()

Summary

grequests offers a simpler API for concurrent HTTP requests, built on the widely-used requests library. It's lightweight and easy to use for basic asynchronous operations. However, it lacks advanced features like HTTP/2 support, which Hyper provides. Hyper is more actively maintained and offers a more comprehensive set of HTTP-related features, including HTTP/2 capabilities. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project, with grequests being suitable for simpler concurrent HTTP/1.1 requests and Hyper being more appropriate for advanced HTTP/2 implementations.