Re: Two mqtt libraries

From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-07-29 00:49:17

On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 4:57 PM Takatoshi Kondo via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Let me explain an unfair hypothetical scenario example:
> The first library is accepted, but the second one is rejected because
> "Boost already has that functionality."
> This would be unfair.
>

We need to be careful here. Consider Boost.JSON. It implements a
variant-like, mutable container which can hold a JSON document. Is there
room for other JSON libraries in Boost? Why yes, there are. For example,
SIMDJson uses a completely different approach. It is read-only and it makes
a different set of tradeoffs.

When I say that if both libraries are useful, they should both be
considered for inclusion, we must carefully define "useful." If two
libraries offer a set of features, or if the two libraries make different
tradeoffs to the extent that such tradeoffs result in different and
meaningful user bases, then both could be considered.

On the other hand if both libraries offer the same set of features, and
substantially similar tradeoffs (assuming of course that one library is not
unreasonably slower than the other), the question of whether or not both
are needed might need a different answer.

Thanks