Re: Two mqtt libraries

From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-07-28 23:43:33

On 7/29/24 00:01, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
> The simplest way to resolve this is to just review each library and deal
> with results independently.
> 
> I suspect that both libraries will be acceptable to Boost.  So my
> question is: What happens if both libraries get accepted?
> 
> Do we add both libraries? - again the simplest resolution.
> 
> This satisfies the authors and reviewers and would be suggested by my
> understanding of the Boost "Rules".  But is it the best for Boost and
> Boost users? Wouldn't this be a source of confusion amongst the later.
> Boost has claimed to provide the best implementations of commonly used
> C++ library components.  How could we continue to claim this if we have
> more than one library making this claim about some problem domain.
> 
> I'm also disturbed that it seems that I'm only person concerned about
> this.  Am I out of touch here - if so how. We have elements such as the
> Review Wizard(s) and Steering Committee (still?), Boost Foundation(?),
> informal group of boost senior or privileged developers to address these
> "edge cases".  Is no one willing to speak up here?

Not having looked at either of the libraries, but would it be possible
for the authors of the two libraries to come up with a joint proposal?

There may be room for two libraries if they are significantly different
in some key aspect and both can be useful in different circumstances. If
they are more or less the same, I agree only one should be accepted.