Add parser and writer factories to prepare for future http protocols #11717
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What do these changes do?
For preparation of http/2 and http/3 I have devised a plan to slowly work h2 and aioquic into aiohttp which involves
making abstract bases or implementing type factories into the program so that http/1.1, http/2 and http/3 can be interchangeable in a future update.
Are there changes in behavior for the user?
There shouldn't be any changes yet for users working at a higher level, however users will start notice new arguments appearing
when utilizing things from a
ClientSessionat a lower-level, these for now can be undocumented and left ignored and anyone curious as to why should be able to find this pull request with ease. I have planned this migration to be done slow and steady so that newer protocols can be introduced soon.Is it a substantial burden for the maintainers to support this?
Like I have stated above this process will need to be done slowly if we want http/2 http/3 in the future. My goal is to have at least 1 of these protocols added and fully working with clients and servers before 2027 which should be a reasonable amount of time to complete this goal I had in mind.
Related issue number
Checklist
CONTRIBUTORS.txtCHANGES/foldername it
<issue_or_pr_num>.<type>.rst(e.g.588.bugfix.rst)if you don't have an issue number, change it to the pull request
number after creating the PR
.bugfix: A bug fix for something the maintainers deemed animproper undesired behavior that got corrected to match
pre-agreed expectations.
.feature: A new behavior, public APIs. That sort of stuff..deprecation: A declaration of future API removals and breakingchanges in behavior.
.breaking: When something public is removed in a breaking way.Could be deprecated in an earlier release.
.doc: Notable updates to the documentation structure or buildprocess.
.packaging: Notes for downstreams about unobvious side effectsand tooling. Changes in the test invocation considerations and
runtime assumptions.
.contrib: Stuff that affects the contributor experience. e.g.Running tests, building the docs, setting up the development
environment.
.misc: Changes that are hard to assign to any of the abovecategories.
Make sure to use full sentences with correct case and punctuation,
for example:
Use the past tense or the present tense a non-imperative mood,
referring to what's changed compared to the last released version
of this project.