http://docs.python.org/dev/py3k/library/urllib.request.html#urllib.request._urlopener

[in the body]
urllib._urlopener should be urllib.request._urlopener

Fixed in r80773 and r80774.

Thanks.

You missed the code part:

urllib._urlopener = AppURLopener()

Fixed in r80775 and r80776

Why do we have a public API that begins with an '_'?

That is actually a private attribute of urllib (not urllib2) module
present from the very first version. It is intended strictly for
overriding purposes not for anything else. During the merge in py3k,
it has taken its place in urllib.request. I see no harm in it being
there. If it needs to be un-advertised, perhaps we can remove its
reference from the docs.

Mainly I'm saying that I don't think a public API should have a name starting with an '_'.  Sets a bad precedent :)

Looking at the functionality more closely, though, it does make me nervous that we are recommending changing the global state of the module.  Sounds like a recipe for hard to find bugs.  So maybe it should be removed from the docs, and a better way found to expose that functionality.

The functionality provided by urllib.request._urlopener can be accomplished in a more natural way using build_opener. Historically, _urlopener was there for urllib and build_opener style came in urllib2.

So, I think, this can be safely be removed from the docs considering David's suggestion that its better not to advertise _methods in the docs.

Actually, I see certain use-cases of _urlopener in py3k. Most visible one being urllib.request.urlretrieve and also URLOpener.open which is different from build_opener way of doing things.

- But still, public exposure of overriding globals to can be removed. There is no harm in the functionality. In py3k, users should resort to build_opener style of doing than use FancyURLOpener or URLOpener which are present for backward compatibility reasons only.

Removed in r81283 and r81284.
With respect to the technical details of exposing this functionality for _urlretrieve and URLOpener.
- users can still do it.
- There is a better way, if the other global _opener be served for the same purpose, so that build_opener can be used. There is TODO mentioned in the code, let me see if it can be accomplished without any problem.