Port name validation for brazier (async C++ web framework)

[NikSimDev]

Hello vcpkg community,

I’m planning to submit a port for my C++ library — an asynchronous web framework called brazier. Before opening a PR, I’d like to confirm that the port name is appropriate.

Proposed port name: brazier

Project description:
brazier is a modern C++ asynchronous web framework built on C++20 coroutines. It provides a non-blocking HTTP server and client, routing, middleware, WebSocket support, and integration with Asio. The library is designed to be lightweight and easy to integrate into existing C++ projects that need high-performance asynchronous networking.

Repository: https://github.com/brazier-tech/brazier

Uniqueness and naming checks:

• I searched GitHub for other repositories named brazier that are asynchronous C++ web frameworks. There are no analogues with this name in the C++ async web framework space.
• Existing projects named brazier are unrelated to this domain (e.g., a JavaScript Firebase helper, a Rust mediator library, etc.) and do not conflict with a C++ vcpkg port.
• The name consists only of lowercase Latin letters, which satisfies vcpkg’s naming rules.
• I also checked Repology; no C++ package with this name was found.

Given this, I believe brazier is a valid and unambiguous name for the port. Could you please confirm whether brazier is acceptable, or whether you would recommend a prefix (for example, yourname-brazier) to avoid any future confusion?

Thank you for your time and feedback.

[xop (xop01)]

There is no ports/brazier in the vcpkg tree right now. A name made of lowercase letters matches the shape vcpkg uses. That does not reserve it.

Open the port PR with brazier. Reviewers accept that name or ask for another one there. A prefix is only needed if they say the plain name is too generic.

NikSimDev