Re: Two mqtt libraries

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-05-20 14:05:34

On 5/20/24 1:20 AM, Klemens Morgenstern via Boost wrote:
> 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?

I don't think I said "too much overlap". It's true that I made only the 
most casual review of the two github sites.

> 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.

So... is my impression that these libraries overlap correct or 
incorrect?  My concern is that this would create a conflict.  Am I wrong 
about this?  If they really do address different domains and could 
coexist within boost, perhaps only a name change is called for.  Feel 
free to enlighten me on this.

>> 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.

This could lead to the acceptance of both libraries.  Would that be a 
problem?  If so, how would it be resolved?

> 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?

I'm not sure what the boost review policy on this. I seem to recall the 
review manager participating in the discussion mostly to clarify 
misunderstandings.

>   - Should consensus between RMs be required? Or could both libraries
> be accepted?

That's the question!!!

I think we're on the same page as having simutaneous reviews.  I would 
argue that the outcome should be one decision by one person.  Since it 
seems that you've volunteered to review both libraries, you'd be the 
logical person to be the review manager.  Thanks for volunteering.  I 
don't envy you the task.

Given that your much more knowledgable about the domain, I'd be curious 
on your opinion as two whether having both libraries in boost would be a 
good idea.

I would also like to mention that I think this kind of library is 
suitable for Boost.  I don't expect to see this in the standard and it 
seems there is need for it.  So boost might be the logical home for it.

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