Having the Architecture Council established, let’s go into some initial discussion on the overall directions for our beloved project! A major step has been the re-integration of ESH into openHAB 2. From a technical perspective, this has only happened partially as although we have moved the code to …

[image] Kai: Note that we are oblidged to get rid of this in the long term. Is there a deadline for this? I ask because do we need to fit all of these proposed changes into a specific calendar time period, or can we release 3.0 when it’s ready without needing to rush? I’ve gathered a lot of …

[image] rlkoshak: Is there a deadline for this? I ask because do we need to fit all of these proposed changes into a specific calendar time period, or can we release 3.0 when it’s ready without needing to rush? If you ask for an “official” deadline, it would be December 2018. There simply sho…

[image] Kai: Note that I tried to think of things that removes burden from us, not about adding new features :wink: I agree. But as a helper on the forum, these are things that would remove burdens from us. [image] Kai: I’d actually suggest to enter many of your ideas into the issue trac…

The rule templates have never been rolled out to the openHAB users. My point is that they are the feature you are asking for. The format does not have to be JSON, other formats could be implemented (not sure how it would have to look in Jython). All this should be part of making the experimental RE …

I’ve received a PM regarding the removal of the compatibility layer so I’m going to go ahead and open up a thread on Development for further discussion. [image] Removal of the OH 1.x Compatibility Layer Development One of the proposed goals for OH 3 is the rem…

I don’t know if we should open a new thread now or not. But I have some real concerns about removing the compatibility layer without offering any way to continue to support 1.x bindings. There are far too many 1.x bindings for which there isn’t a 2.x binding to replace them and sadly that will alwa…

We’ll said @rlkoshak really echos my feelings. Following the if it isn’t broke philosophy I can say. I use insteon and expire. Really as a user I care that it works more than new features. For expire not sure things and auto discovery apply. For insteon yes I suppose auto discovery/channel link…

For expire specifically, I think it should just be a setting in the Item definition window in PaperUI, much like Groups currently are. Expire directly acts on the “state” of the Item, so it should just be a configuration setting for each item, rather than a dedicated binding.

[image] Thedannymullen: So it would be more or less work for the sake of work. So much this.

[image] bartus: For expire specifically, I think it should just be a setting in the Item definition window in PaperUI I absolutely agree and stated the same here a while ago. Imho, the expire1 binding should never have been introduced in the first place, I only learned about it when it was to…

Directions for openHAB 3

Development

rlkoshak (Rich Koshak) February 12, 2019, 6:24pm 7

I’ve received a PM regarding the removal of the compatibility layer so I’m going to go ahead and open up a thread on Development for further discussion.