Re: Two mqtt libraries

From: Klemens Morgenstern (klemensdavidmorgenstern_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-05-20 08:20:14

On Sun, May 19, 2024 at 2:27 AM Robert Ramey via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> I've been contacted by my friend and sometime collaborator Takatoshi
> Kondo regarding his submission of a boost library:
> https://github.com/redboltz/async_mqtt. It has received two
> endorsements. He has asked me to be review manager and I'm inclined to
> accept this request as he was very helpful to me during the refinement
> of the boost serialization library.
>
> There is also mqtt client library that is proposed to the Boost.
> https://github.com/mireo/async-mqtt5 It also has endorsements and a
> review manager.

I've been approached by the mireo authors and have volunteered to be
their review manager.

>
> A cursory examination of the git hub pages suggest considerable overlap
> between the two submissions.  In general, boost has discouraged the
> acceptance of multiple libraries with this much overlap - and for good
> reason.  An accepted library often becomes the canonical implementation
> in large parts of the C++ world.  Having two high quality libraries that
> do almost the same thing is not where we would like to be.

Who's deciding "too much overlap"? Shouldn't this be up to reviewers?

In this case, mireo aims to be a safe & easy-to-use client library,
while redboltz is a protocol library that can also be used to build
servers.
>
> I would like to propose that we review both libraries simultaneously in
> order to try to reach a consensus as to which, if either we want to
> accept.  I know this is a difficult task, but I think it is important
> that we do this.  It's going to be tough to reject a well written
> library because a better one has been accepted.  But it would be worse
> to reject a well written library merely because another one was
> submitted first.  Normally I don't participate as a review manager as
> I'm pretty bogged down in Boost stuff as it is.  But I'm willing to make
> an exception in this case due to the importance of this case and my
> strong personal ties to Takatoshi.  BTW - who is the review wizard these
> days?  I presume that he will be the one making the decision about this.
>

What I would propose is that both libraries are review simultaneously
or back-to-back, but considered separate reviews.
A few thoughts:

 - The review manager exchange notes and publish their decision at the
same time.
 - Yet, these are two different reviews.
 - Reviewers are encouraged (yet not forced) to review both libraries.
 - The RM of library B can take into account if a reviewer only
reviews library A
 - The RM can also take into account the result of the other review
(e.g. if it's a close call for A, but B is accepted overwhelmingly)

 - If we do the reviews simultaneously, do we need an extended period?
 - Can the RM of A write a review or participate in the discussion for B?
 - Should consensus between RMs be required? Or could both libraries
be accepted?

> Robert Ramey
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost