[xml] Re: The DSO dilemna

[Aleksey Sanin <aleksey aleksey com>]

> Aleksey what is you view point on this ? Do you think the suggested API 
> would be sufficient ? Would it be worth changing XMLSec to also rely on it ?
How many and which platforms are supported by Joel's code? How much
was it tested?

IMO, xmlsec and libxml2 are not about loading dynamic libraries.
Thus, if there is a piece of code that can be re-used then I prefer
to re-use it. With ltdl there is a clear maintanance path. If tomorrow
there is a new platform XYZ that are supported by ltdl then current
xmlsec code almost automaticaly gets it too. With custom code you have
to write, debug and test new code on this new platform.

In the long run, if dynamic libraries loading is added to libxml2 then
I would love to convert xmlsec to use it (see main reason above - xmlsec
is not about dynamic loading :) ). However, if the implementation would
be based on custom code then I would prefer to wait until it is proven
to work on all platforms supported by libxml2/xmlsec (the most important
ones are: linux, winnt, solaris, aix, mac, beos, hp-unix).

Regarding API (looking at the patch in Joel's mail from 12/21/04):
1) What is the difference between xmlModuleClose and xmlModuleFree?
2) What about thread safety of these calls?
3) Do I need to specify full path in xmlModuleOpen call or just filename
would be enough (e.g. is LD_LIBRARY_PATH supported or not)?

Aleksey