←back to thread

45 points scolby33 | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.61s | source | bottom
1. hartator ◴[] No.46221036[source]
I think they are misreading the situation.

The devil is in the details. It seems `getHeaders` v. `headers` is non-security, non-performance related issue. Why people should spend time fixing these?

replies(2): >>46221216 #>>46223911 #
2. CaliforniaKarl ◴[] No.46221216[source]
If you (either directly or from SerpApi) are supporting the urllib3 folks (through a Tidelift subscription), then yes, that is a valid point.

Otherwise, I'd say that's a very brave comment you are making.

replies(2): >>46221607 #>>46221671 #
3. shadowgovt ◴[] No.46221607[source]
"Brave" in what sense? It's a legitimate question why an API is having a pattern deprecated and removed for what appears to be pattern reasons.
4. ipaddr ◴[] No.46221671[source]
If he gave money valid point if not he must be brave?
5. attractivechaos ◴[] No.46223911[source]
Even if getHeaders() has security/performance concerns, the better solution is to make it an alias to the newer headers.get() in this case. Keeping the old API is a small hassle to a handful of developers but breaking existing code puts a much bigger burden on a lot more users.
replies(1): >>46224093 #
6. nodesocket ◴[] No.46224093[source]
Ya, why not just alias old api calls to the new if implementation details changed?