Re: async-mqtt5 review

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-10-25 15:22:41

Dominique Devienne wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 2:43 PM Julien Blanc via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > 2 octobre 2024 Ã  18:51 "Christian Mazakas via Boost"
> <boost_at_[hidden]
> mailto:boost_at_[hidden]?to=%22Christian%20Mazakas%20via%20Boost
> %22%20%3Cboost%40lists.boost.org%3E > a écrit:
> > > I think there's a lot of utility in MQTT, but what I'd like to see
> > > in the future for libraries like these is a first-class interface _without_ I/O.
> >
> > I'm surprised that this remark did not raise more reaction. I'd like
> > to put a very big +1 on what Christian said.
> 
> FWIW, that's also what went through my mind reading Christian.
> And I was surprised when Vinnie didn't jump on this, since he's adverstised his
> own libraries going in that direction as well.
> 
> And even though I have no skin in this game, since I'm only on ASIO-supported
> OSes, and not in the MQTT target market, I think Christian makes a very good
> point.
> 
> Designing for testability is always something I strive for, in my own libs. --DD

It is, however, significantly harder to design sans-io libraries than it is ones
where the I/O layer is fixed and known.

If we reject all libraries of the second persuasion, we may not get any of the
first one, and we'll be left with nothing.