Re: [xml] [PATCH] DSO/Module Support

["Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming starnetworks us>]

Daniel Veillard wrote:

> 1/ ltdl.c + Makefile stuff looks way larger than the suggested patch.

It is, but...

> 2/ I'm not sure I like libtool in general and ltdl.c looks excruciatingly
>    complex (possibly this need to be that complex, but it's not likely)

It is. However, I don't believe any of this complexity was added 
gratuitously, but only because it was found to be needed. For example, I 
have a project that uses libtool and libltdl, and it allows for the 
modules to be "preloaded" if the user chooses a completely-static build. 
Even if the user does this, it's still invisible to the application, it 
just enumerates the available modules and symbols.

> 3/ libltdl seems to be under the LGPL licence, which is significantly
>    different from MIT' one we are using

I can't speak to that, although everything I've read seems to indicate 
that LGPL is nearly as free as BSD, but not quite. IANAL, though, and 
don't have the desire to get involved that issue :-)

>   would you candidate to fix problems in a timely fashion if we have
> some with libltdl ?

I don't have any time in the next two weeks, but after that I'd be happy 
to integrate libltdl into libxml2 and try it out. I do monitor the 
libtool mailing lists and have used it (libltdl) in a project with 30+ 
loadable modules, so I have some experience doing this. I don't expect 
there'll be much of a support burden since this is a brand new feature 
and there won't be many users :-)

Someone else will need ascertain the license compatibility first, 
though. Don't want to waste the effort...