En 21/07/25 1:16 a. m., Sandeep Thakkar escribió:
Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
> Own implementation of SQL/XML generating functions like XMLFOREST or
> XMLELEMENT should not be too
> difficult. Significantly more difficult problem is parsing of XML (more
> with namespaces), although some basic
> support for XMLTABLE should not be too hard too.
I don't think anybody really wants to roll our own XML parser.
> Isn't possible to call Rust code from C? Then maybe there are some
> possibility from Rust world
> https://github.com/ballsteve/xrust
Maybe. I think the fundamental problem here, similar to what we've
run into elsewhere, is that we chose a library to depend on without
thinking hard enough about whether it would be well-supported in the
long run. I see little reason to think that that risk would be less
for some random not-written-in-C implementation. If we want to
jump ship away from libxml2, we had better ask hard questions about
the new choice.
After reading this thread I've stepped in to maintain libxslt and me and other
Mexican developers are going to be on top of libxml2. We use this libraries and their
Rust bindings because we're writing libraries for handling Mexican taxes and they are
wrapped in XML.
So at least me and another developer will be helping with this libraries and will make
our best effort to keep them up to date both in securities and functionalities (eg. XSLT 2.0 support).
Cheers,
Iván
