Re: Two mqtt libraries

From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-05-20 15:28:30

On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 11:27 AM Robert Ramey via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> ...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.
>

I have similar thoughts as you and until this year I had my own ideas about
"what belongs in Boost." As there is no formal document or informal
exposition offered by the Boost Libraries project website I evolved my own
thinking as I am sure that others have done.

However, upon discussions with high reputable sources (basically Peter
Dimov), the criteria for "what belongs in Boost" is that "a library is
useful." Applying this metric, I would think that if both MQTT libraries
are useful then they should both be reviewed with the potential for
acceptance.

It really would be nice if there was some kind of documented rationale for
what libraries belong in Boost as this would eliminate the speculation and
guesswork.

Thanks