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

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

Joel Reed wrote:

> i proposed using the ltdl library a long time ago, when i was implementing
> the exslt:crypto extension. at that time, there was considerable
> concern expressed on this list about using ltdl in a library that was
> so widely used particulary wrt. symbol conflicts. 

Yes, that is a big concern.

> btw, xmlsec handles the symbol conflicts like this: 
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/xslt/2004-May/msg00031.html

That seems like a prudent solution. Another option is bundle libltdl in 
the libxml2 distribution, but linked to a shared version (either 
previously existing on the user's system or installed during libxml2 
install), to keep the symbols from being re-exported.

> finally the licence issues of LGPL vs MIT, and the fact that
> apache's APR DSO functions didn't use ltdl, led me to the current
> implementation.

That's another thought: does APR do you what you need?