René's URL Explorer Experiment

{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DiscussionForumPosting","headline":"Find a safer way to integrate with lxml","articleBody":"lxml's maintainer here. Users have run into numerous issues in the past due to incompatible libxml2 versions being used by lxml and xmlsec. This is because xmlsec is usually built against system installed libraries, whereas lxml bundles libxml2 and libxslt to ease the otherwise difficult installation. Thus, both can end up using different library versions that make different assumptions about the C tree structure and its handling, as well as missing configuration state (see #239, for example). lxml has about 100x as many downloads as xmlsec, so most users don't use both together, and thus, both have different needs regarding their installation and user base.\r\n\r\nI would like to improve the situation by making lxml and xmlsec more independent from each other.\r\n\r\nMost xmlsec features seem to rely on serialisation, probably C14N, which can be left to lxml. Exchanging serialised byte buffers should trivially avoid compatibility issues.\r\n\r\nAt which places does xmlsec need actual access to libxml2 trees? How can we get them to use a safe but efficient data exchange?","author":{"url":"https://github.com/scoder","@type":"Person","name":"scoder"},"datePublished":"2024-02-06T10:15:56.000Z","interactionStatistic":{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":"https://schema.org/CommentAction","userInteractionCount":7},"url":"https://github.com/283/python-xmlsec/issues/283"}