About the polls (you find them here):
I am bit surprised only 46 users responded in 3 weeks.
This shows very little interest in the evolution of this binding!
Are users not looking to the forum anymore?
Or they do not care about OpenWebNet and openHAB 3.0 ?
I suspect there are many more people using the official or the testing version of the binding… I will keep quiet… until we reach at least 50 answers!
@massi: I already voted, I think that a lot of folks will only come here if they face problems…
Please keep up your good work, really appreciate it.
I think that’s part of the problem. You went quiet for so long and no-one new why. People drifted away and stopped checking the thread. Some only came back when the binding expired.
Also its not just the binding that is being developed but the user use of it especially any new features and integration with other bindings which also developing. There is not much chat here about useage and so no reason for people to come looking for ideas.
So, the thread is quiet as a result… Just my thoughts…
If the more active users keep posting and especially if you, Massi, and others keep supporting on here then maybe they will drift back.
Thanks @m4rk for your point of view.
Without wanting to make controversy (*), whatever the reason why not even 50 people answer 2 simple questions makes me think about the opportunity to invest “hobby coding” effort in this binding …
To include new features (for example a new WHO), well designed, takes literally several evenings of work and testing, also because OH maintainers rightly require a very high quality code and a lot of precision, something that is definitely not found in other opensource solutions.
Since the official binding in its current state already does everything I need in my personal home environment, adding more features is just a matter of hobby and “fun” in seeing that what you do is useful and interesting for someone.
So if “someone” is only 50 people … well as you can understand, the fun is little 
Maybe people, as you say, come here only when something doesn’t work (the “testing” binding expires soon, we’ll see ) or maybe they have already migrated to other systems: there are in fact other open source solutions, but from what I understand they work badly. Or perhaps many have already migrated to new commercial products / solutions that ultimately no longer require OH.
I do not know the answer. But it is interesting to know.
Bottom line: not even 50 people interested are really much less than I expected.
What do you think?
(*) the reason why there was no update for so long from my side was also because there has been no feedback for so long about inserting the binding in the official OH distribution. Now the situation is very different: all the code is available and the binding is officially integrated in OH2-3. Also: progress maybe is done “behind the curtains” or on github, where actually all the OH contributors are following the progress, maybe not all the users.
Hi,
I already voted. I agree with M4rk, the expiration of the testing binding will move users to OH3 and hopefully this topic will get hotter. Maybe the poll should be pinned or re-posted to be more visible to members who come here less often. It could also help putting a link of the thread (or the poll) somewhere in the binding official page if possible (i.e. OpenWebNet (BTicino/Legrand) - Bindings | openHAB).
Besides, thanks for your hard work.
g
Thanks for the reply. It is apreciated.
I have always tried to encourage disucssions about BTicino openwebnet and not just here but elsewhere too, As you well know. There must be a very large number of people with this system in their houses but there is surprisingly little talk about it. I think a reason for this is that there are very few ‘nice’ places to discuss these topics and so the awarness of what people could do without paying installers seems limited to an expert, techy few. I know a lot more about what it is possible beyond just installing thanks this forum and others. I can now do a lot more with my expensive hardware than my installer was ever aware of or interested in.
As you just pointed out one very good reason to promote disucssions is to generate more interest because if there is little apparent interest then these activities will die a slow death. That’s not what I want to see happen. So, we need to keep this thread alive, vibrant and on top and support the users. Besides it’s fun talking and in doing so I learn as much if not more as I can give back If we encourage dialogue then people will see it, come back and more will discover the possibilities and get interested. If you somehow monetise your suport and expertise then more interest would also be good for you too.
There is another thread on here in the general section for related but non binding questions. It would be good if you linked to it at the top to direct others with more general and or basic operational questions >>>
https://community.openhab.org/t/bticino-myhome-suite-documentation-and-basics/87483/38
M
ps Thank you for all your hard work but if you disappear again please be as so kind to let us know why. We can then help, be sympathetic and patient if we understand your frustrations.
Voted weeks ago.
I don’t know if there’s a way to count the number of installed/downloaded official or beta testing binding but, I’m quite sure that are much much more than 50…
As already writteb above, the testing version works very well and it is not so unusual that people look at the forum post only when any problem arise. OH 3.0 went live just few weeks ago, it takes times before people will upgrade. I still use OH2 and the beta version as stable and have another installation with OH3 and official binding for testing.
A part from OH, I think that no other not commercial platform have the same feature as the testing binding or (hope shortly) the new OpenWebNet Library part of the official one.
Thanks for the work done but, after all the effort to become “official”, it shouldn become a “dead” binding 
I think this is the best solution for remote control Bticino MyHome automation system.
Very interesting was also some previous release of the binding with energy monitor, scenarios, contacts… I think as soon the new binding will have few more features, for example the thermo regulation, ( is one of the most important from my point of view ) also a lot of professional people will propose openhab to final customer.
I would gladly help with development but unfortunately I don’t know this way of programming.
So if you wanna just share some documentation of how it woks and I’ll study and try.
Otherwise for any testing or simpler task just ask and I’ll give all the support I can.
Many thanks for this big work!
i vote too and i want to help if i can , thx , thx and thanks again for what you do every day for this binding
Thanks you all, and @massi especially.
I must admit I was not planning to vote (but just did it), to not interfere in the final selection as I would not take any benefit.
Indeed, the reason is very simple, and you mention it briefly for you: the binding does already all what I need @ home (I have no so much equipments using openwebnet).
I can tell you I appreciate a lot what you did, your binding (& OH of course) is for the only “good” way to manage my shutters & implements rules and scenarios.
So big thanks.
I voted at the very beginning and i found really a good idea asking users what they need to be developed first.
Less than 50 votes only it is really a pity i agree but i think many users come here to the forum because and only when they need something: a problem solution, an idea etc.
Perhaps the more the work of the binding is good the less people have to come over here so: this ought to be a great compliment for the binding creator!!!
I think the user of Bticino hardware, expecially myhome, needs a platform like OH where his plant is integrated first to the world outside and then completed with what Bticino myhome is not doing at all. But you must consider also that who invested a lot of money in this hardware did it just because it is a domotic installation that ought to work always and without problems at all. The same here for the binding: they installed it because it is doing a lot of things Bticino does not but once setup it ought to work and do not stop and without the needs to look for problems solution in a forum.
There are people who are interested in chatting with other users and share experiences and ideas and there are people who simply care that their needs are satisfied and that’s it.
50 users could be a little number or a big one I think it’s related to the type of user but this does not mean the whole work is not interesting .
I am using the beta version on OH2 and testing the new one on OH3 and I am one of those who are waiting for the beta version expiring fixed .
thank you
Hi everyone and @massi , I also voted few weeks ago.
I really appreciate your work, it allows me to use better my Bticino home automation component. I’m not very technical and I must say that sometimes I had some problem to follow your indications, maybe many users have the same problem as me. Now with this new version of Openhab 3 even the less technical will be facilitated.
Hi @massi I actually think 50 is not a bad number of responses, normally a survey will only get a small percentage return. I would have expected 10-20. So I imagine there must be more than 100 users. Ideally we can get more development help from among the users, I did some very basic coding on the original binding to help get CEN+ working so once I have OH3 up in the next month I will reinstall Eclipse and see whether I can help. For me without CEN+ I can not use the binding because many of my physical switches are CEN+
I have my oh3 test pi running and I am working through the breaking changes. Mostly date and time issues. The openwebnet binding seems OK but its quite a big downgrade and so a lot of rules are not running due to missing openwebnet features.
So, I will have a dilemma. I can’t move to oh3 without the missing features in openwebnet binding eg cen and when the binding expires then what?. What is the purpose in setting a binding expiry?
As repeated already: the purpose was to have all users move and be aligned to the latest version.
Now there is no more this need, so as I promised I will post an updated version with no expire, but no support at all will be given to that version (the expire is in a couple of days, but I should find the time to post this final unlimited version before then)
Hi @Julian_Divett your help here is very much welcome and since you already contributed to the original BTicino binding I think your help will be surely effective.
I have in mind some important changes to CEN/CEN+ since the current design is not appropriate. CEN/CEN+ should be offered as triggers/commands and not as channels.
I suggest when you have a working setup of the Eclipse OH3 environment and have time to contribute, you contact me and we can discuss the new design also with other power users like @m4rk
Since we reached 50 answers, I closed the polls.
The bottom line is indeed a confirmation to me:
Thanks for answering, stay tuned!
sure whe stay tune !
Thanks Massi for the update.
I see the ‘generic BUS message’ is not high priority for people. Could you explain a bit more about your ideas behind this tem please.
One thing I struggle with is getting a message out to OH when a MH202 scenario runs. I found certain switch addresses can be used A8-9 and the ON or OFF command is seen on the BUS even though I do’t have the hardware they seem to exist and I dont know why it works. Or if I have spare unused actuators I use these in the same way. ON/OFF action in a scenario is then detected by OH.
Internally on the MH202 I also use Boolean states to track things and to initiate some sceanrios but these are not seen by the binding and worse they get messed and require a MH202 reset after the binding scans for devices. I also use CEN commands on the MH202 to trigger scenarios in a chain but these internal CEN commands do not get seen by the binding either.
So, in order for OH to track which MH202 scenarios have been activated I only really have the option of using spare unused actuators as a trigger (I do not have enough of these) or the weird non existent virtual actuators from A8-9 (I used all avaibale addresses)
I was hoping you had some better idea 
Testing non existent 9.15 adresss
Scanning for 9.15 - in case I have some hidden harware!!
They can’t both be correct but 9.15 behaves as though it really exists!!
Hi Massi!
Thanks also from my side for your effort and great work!
I think that many users like me, don’t have so much time to dedicate to rewriting all things, items and rules, so before I move to the new binding, I will wait for Thermo to work. Indeed I’m also using the binding 1 for the thermo scenarios.
It’s a pitty that the generic openwebnet messages are not a priority, actually just with that we could control everything
Keep on going, thanks!!!