RFC 8594: The Sunset HTTP Header Field (2019)
datatracker.ietf.org
RFC 8594: The Sunset HTTP Header Field (2019)
1–10 of 13 posts
Re: RFC 8594: The Sunset HTTP Header Field (2019)
#2Why do libraries such as Requests or HTTPX not support this out of the box? It would be really useful to have automatic warning or sentry event after deprecation response.
I understand that this functionality can be easily added as a plugin, but not everyone is aware that such a thing even exists. With default support, it will be easier to upgrade to new API versions and keep stuff up to date.
Re: RFC 8594: The Sunset HTTP Header Field (2019)
#3Why do libraries such as Requests or HTTPX not support this out of the box? It would be really useful to have automatic warning or sentry event after deprecation response. I understand that this functionality can be easily added as a plugin, but not everyone is aware that such a thing even exists. With default support, it will be easier to upgrade to new API versions and keep stuff up to date.
I'll argue that if these features are more widely known and respected, we wouldn't need to re-invent these kinds of elegant solutions with clunky and thick stacks, over and over again.
Re: RFC 8594: The Sunset HTTP Header Field (2019)
#4Related. Others?
The Sunset HTTP Header Field - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19926775 - May 2019 (82 comments)
Re: RFC 8594: The Sunset HTTP Header Field (2019)
#5Why do libraries such as Requests or HTTPX not support this out of the box? It would be really useful to have automatic warning or sentry event after deprecation response. I understand that this functionality can be easily added as a plugin, but not everyone is aware that such a thing even exists. With default support, it will be easier to upgrade to new API versions and keep stuff up to date.
I'll argue that if these features are more widely known and respected, we wouldn't need to re-invent these kinds of elegant solutions with clunky and thick stacks, over and over again.
I'll argue that the major problem with everything in software is that there is no place for random developers to discuss standards they might want to implement
For example, if drag and drop and copy and paste didn't exist, it probably wouldn't be created today because you need 2 programs to agree on accepting the format (you can't even drag and drop from most software except file managers...). And even conventions that ALREADY exist are being forgotten with every year.
Re: RFC 8594: The Sunset HTTP Header Field (2019)
#6Why do libraries such as Requests or HTTPX not support this out of the box? It would be really useful to have automatic warning or sentry event after deprecation response. I understand that this functionality can be easily added as a plugin, but not everyone is aware that such a thing even exists. With default support, it will be easier to upgrade to new API versions and keep stuff up to date.
I suggested exactly that (for the closely related Deprecation header) to Requests a few years ago, they feel it's the application's responsibility, discussion here: https://github.com/psf/requests/issues/5724
Re: RFC 8594: The Sunset HTTP Header Field (2019)
#7Why do libraries such as Requests or HTTPX not support this out of the box? It would be really useful to have automatic warning or sentry event after deprecation response. I understand that this functionality can be easily added as a plugin, but not everyone is aware that such a thing even exists. With default support, it will be easier to upgrade to new API versions and keep stuff up to date.
My REST client emits this to console.log out of the box, and it's been really useful https://github.com/badgateway/ketting
It's nice when tooling builds this sort of stuff in, because it also encourages APIs to implement it.
Re: RFC 8594: The Sunset HTTP Header Field (2019)
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll argue that if these features are more widely known and respected, we wouldn't need to re-invent these kinds of elegant solutions with clunky and thick stacks, over and over again.
I'll argue that the major problem with everything in software is that there is no place for random developers to discuss standards they might want to implement For example, if drag and drop and copy and paste didn't exist, it probably wouldn't be created today because you need 2 programs to agree on accepting the format (you can't even drag and drop from most software except file managers...). And even conventions th…
Isn't there though? I feel as though actually there usually is a place to ask if you bothered to do so and the trouble is more than people don't even check.
Re: RFC 8594: The Sunset HTTP Header Field (2019)
#9Oh, this creates a header field called "Sunset". The title made me scared for a bit.
Re: RFC 8594: The Sunset HTTP Header Field (2019)
#10Why do libraries such as Requests or HTTPX not support this out of the box? It would be really useful to have automatic warning or sentry event after deprecation response. I understand that this functionality can be easily added as a plugin, but not everyone is aware that such a thing even exists. With default support, it will be easier to upgrade to new API versions and keep stuff up to date.
How would it behave? The standard as written doesn't suggest any appropriate client behaviour.
It explicitly doesn't have to mean deprecation, the standard says it could also be returned from any short-lived resource. There's no way to see if the header applies to the whole server or just the specific resource or even query parameters, and no way to deduplicate to ignore known warnings.