@KidSquid, Kai can be curt but I don’t think he meant it to come across as it reads. We are dealing with text based communication with I would venture to say a majority of non-native English speakers. I think what he was trying to get across is because the Vantage system uses the TCP binding, by definition it is not something that will ever be non-technical user friendly. There are a certain set of bindings (Exec, TCP, Serial, HTTP, GPIO, etc.) that by their very nature are so low level that they require a technical user to get working. For most other OH 2 bindings, all the non-technical users should need know about Things is that they show up in their Inbox.
And I agree. Anyone who thinks their grandma will ever be able to configure automation for something that requires a TCP binding through openHAB is going to be very disappointed.
I’ll break it down a bit further for you to explain a bit about the answers you are receiving and why they are not helpful to you because I think there is a major miscommunication going on here.
You asked specifically about a Vantage lighting system in relation to Things. Now I’m a bit pressed for time these days so I didn’t do my due diligence to look and realize that the way you would integrate this system with OH is using the TCP binding. I just assumed that there was a Vantage binding and there was a 2.0 Vantage binding to boot because you were talking about Things.
It wasn’t until right now with Kai’s most recent post that the light bulb went off in my head.
So here is the tl;dr. Things are irrelevant to you when it comes to Vantage. The TCP Binding is a 1.9 binding. Things only exist for and are valid for 2.0 bindings. 1.9 bindings, even in OH 2, work IDENTICALLY to how they did in OH 1. No Things.
I think the source of your and my confusion and why the help we tried to provide didn’t make much sense is that you are trying to figure out how to create a Thing for a binding that doesn’t support Things.
I’m also aware of the deficiencies in the documentation. We all are. And it is more than a little frustrating to receive post after post after post after post of people all saying the same thing:
“OH is too hard for non-technical people and the docs are too complex and incomplete. openHAB will never be a tool for non-technical users until YOU fix it.”
We know! We are trying to fix it and to make it better. But when I keep seeing these “the docs suck” postings I can say, at least for me, it feels a whole lot like being stuck on the side of the road fixing a flat tire while someone stands there and watches me work saying over and over “hey, did you know you have a flat tire?” I’m sure they think they are being helpful, but I already know the tire is flat and it would be a whole lot more helpful if they actually pitched in and did something to help.
But realize this:
- this entire effort is completely supported through volunteer efforts
- pretty much everyone who currently volunteers their time are highly technical and/or developers of the product
- few if anyone who does volunteer are technical writers (i.e. the kinds of professional writers who create user manuals)
- almost no one likes to write documents
- there is no way to force people to work on what they don’t want to work on
Hence the current state of the docs for OH and just about every other open source project out there.
But, if you are not in a position to pitch in and write or edit documents there are lots of way you CAN help. Above I asked “What in particular do you find deficient with the writeup here?” I wasn’t being flippant or dismissive. We genuinely want and need concrete and actionable recommendations. Broad “the docs are too technical” comments are not helpful. “I don’t understand term x, y, and z” or “I don’t understand how to create a Thing using binding X even after reading the provided links” are both helpful.