Notes About Libwww compared to libcurl
These are only some quick notes. If you have additional experiencies and comments you want to share with the world, we're all ears!
- libcurl is (far) more portable
- libcurl is supported and has a living community (compare traffic on the mailing lists, release frequency or similar)
- programs need less code to transfer files using libcurl than a libwww- based equivalent
- libcurl is thread-safe, libwww is not
- libcurl has a different feature-set and offers several features not present in libwww, like several HTTP authentication types and gzip support
- libcurl supports more protocols
- libwww offers caching and HTML parsing, which libcurl doesn't
Quote from a usenet posting by Carl Daniel:
libcurl is easy to use and gives good performance. libwww is a nightmare to use, performs poorly (no overlapped I/O support, for example), and is practically undocumented (on top of which it's a very complex library). libwww is really a platform for network protocol development, not a library for basic access to well known network protocol stacks.
Quote from the libwww-mailing list by Akritidis Xristoforos:
I switched to libcurl, rewrote the same code in a week and haven't looked back.
Perhaps this library has some features that libcurl doesn't, though I didn't have to use them for my needs. However, for libwww to survive, someone has to focus on these features and let libcurl do the rest.
Personally, I can't find any reason to suggest libwww to anyone.