Pros of MaterialSearchView

• More customization options for the search view appearance
• Includes built-in voice search functionality
• Supports both toolbar and floating search views

Cons of MaterialSearchView

• Less seamless integration with the action bar compared to PersistentSearch
• May require more setup and configuration
• Limited animation options for search view transitions

Code Comparison

PersistentSearch:

PersistentSearchView searchView = (PersistentSearchView) findViewById(R.id.searchview);
searchView.setOnSearchListener(new PersistentSearchView.OnSearchListener() {
    @Override
    public void onSearchOpened() {
        // Search opened
    }
});

MaterialSearchView:

MaterialSearchView searchView = (MaterialSearchView) findViewById(R.id.search_view);
searchView.setOnQueryTextListener(new MaterialSearchView.OnQueryTextListener() {
    @Override
    public boolean onQueryTextSubmit(String query) {
        // Handle search query
        return false;
    }
});

Both libraries offer easy-to-use search functionality for Android applications. PersistentSearch focuses on seamless integration with the action bar and smooth animations, while MaterialSearchView provides more customization options and additional features like voice search. The choice between the two depends on specific project requirements and desired user experience.

Pros of Search

• More comprehensive search functionality with multiple search types (toolbar, dialog, floating)
• Extensive customization options for appearance and behavior
• Active development with frequent updates and bug fixes

Cons of Search

• Larger codebase may be more complex to integrate and maintain
• Potentially higher resource usage due to additional features

Code Comparison

PersistentSearch:

public class PersistentSearchView extends FrameLayout {
    private EditText mSearchEditText;
    private ImageView mSearchIcon;
    private ImageView mMicIcon;
    private ImageView mClearIcon;
}

Search:

public class SearchView extends FrameLayout implements View.OnClickListener {
    private CardView mCardView;
    private LinearLayout mLinearLayout;
    private ImageView mImageViewLogo;
    private EditText mEditText;
    private ImageView mImageViewMic;
}

Summary

PersistentSearch focuses on providing a simple, persistent search bar, while Search offers a more feature-rich and customizable search experience. PersistentSearch may be easier to implement for basic search functionality, but Search provides more options for advanced use cases and UI customization. The code comparison shows that Search includes additional UI elements like a CardView and logo, reflecting its broader feature set.

Pros of FloatingSearchView

• More customizable UI with built-in suggestions and filters
• Supports voice search functionality out of the box
• Actively maintained with recent updates and bug fixes

Cons of FloatingSearchView

• Larger library size and potentially higher resource usage
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex implementation
• Less native Android look and feel compared to PersistentSearch

Code Comparison

FloatingSearchView:

mSearchView = findViewById(R.id.floating_search_view);
mSearchView.setOnQueryChangeListener(new FloatingSearchView.OnQueryChangeListener() {
    @Override
    public void onSearchTextChanged(String oldQuery, String newQuery) {
        // Handle search query changes
    }
});

PersistentSearch:

PersistentSearchView searchView = findViewById(R.id.persistentSearchView);
searchView.setOnSearchListener(new PersistentSearchView.OnSearchListener() {
    @Override
    public void onSearchOpened() {
        // Handle search opened
    }
});

Both libraries offer search functionality for Android applications, but FloatingSearchView provides more advanced features and customization options at the cost of complexity and resource usage. PersistentSearch offers a simpler, more native-looking implementation that may be sufficient for basic search needs.

Pros of MaterialSearchBar

• More customizable appearance with various styling options
• Includes additional features like voice search and suggestions
• Actively maintained with recent updates

Cons of MaterialSearchBar

• Larger library size, potentially impacting app performance
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex implementation

Code Comparison

MaterialSearchBar:

MaterialSearchBar searchBar = findViewById(R.id.searchBar);
searchBar.setHint("Search");
searchBar.setOnSearchActionListener(new MaterialSearchBar.OnSearchActionListener() {
    @Override
    public void onSearchStateChanged(boolean enabled) {
        // Handle search state change
    }
});

PersistentSearch:

PersistentSearchView searchView = findViewById(R.id.searchView);
searchView.setOnSearchListener(new PersistentSearchView.OnSearchListener() {
    @Override
    public void onSearchOpened() {
        // Handle search opened
    }
});

Summary

MaterialSearchBar offers more features and customization options, making it suitable for complex search implementations. However, this comes at the cost of a larger library size and potentially more complex setup. PersistentSearch, while simpler, may be more suitable for basic search functionality with a focus on performance and ease of implementation.

Pros of PersistentSearch

• Identical functionality and features
• Same codebase and implementation
• Consistent user experience

Cons of PersistentSearch

• No unique advantages over the other repository
• Potential confusion due to duplicate repositories
• Redundant maintenance efforts

Code Comparison

Both repositories contain identical code, so there are no differences to highlight. Here's a sample from both:

class PersistentSearchView @JvmOverloads constructor(
    context: Context,
    attrs: AttributeSet? = null,
    defStyleAttr: Int = 0
) : FrameLayout(context, attrs, defStyleAttr) {

    private var searchBox: EditText? = null
    private var logo: ImageView? = null
    private var micButton: ImageView? = null
    private var searchButton: ImageView? = null

This code snippet is present in both repositories, demonstrating their identical nature.

Summary

The comparison between PersistentSearch and PersistentSearch reveals that they are essentially the same repository. There are no significant differences in terms of functionality, features, or codebase. This situation might lead to confusion for users and developers, as well as unnecessary duplication of efforts in maintenance and updates. It would be beneficial to consolidate these repositories or clarify the purpose of having two identical projects.