OH 1.x add-on assessment

[Andrew_Rowe]

@yves

I’m using the anel (hut) with lots of anel devices

Yves
did you vote in poll?

[rlkoshak (Rich Koshak)]

@Celaeno1

And none of the new OH2 weather bindings provides this feature : html-layout for webview

My understanding is that the binding uses the OH API in a way that is not allowed in OH 2. So there never will be a replacement for that feature, at best not int the way that the weather binding does it. I could be remembering incorrectly though.

@BobA, @marcel_erkel, @5iver, it seems like it would makes sense to move everything after Removal of the OH 1.x Compatibility Layer - #161 to it’s own thread. It seems to have veered off to it’s topic and I frankly hate to see this long and contentious thread continue to pop up in everyone’s feeds.

[marcel_erkel]

Fine with me. Then this thread could also go back to the topic of the removal of the compatibility layer instead of which bindings it would concern which are two different things.

[Bruce_Osborne]

@rlkoshak

My understanding is that the binding uses the OH API in a way that is not allowed in OH 2. So there never will be a replacement for that feature, at best not int the way that the weather binding does it. I could be remembering incorrectly though.

It uses webview, doesn’t it?

[rlkoshak (Rich Koshak)]

@Bruce_Osborne

It uses webview , doesn’t it?

To display it on the sitemap, yes. But it exposes the Item states themselves in a way that isn’t allowed for OH 2 bindings, I believe.

[magd1978 (Alberto Guerrero)]

Removal of the OH 1.x Compatibility Layer

Hello everyone. As a developer, I understand the reasons why the elimination of the 1.x compatibility layer is proposed, and in the end I share them, but I have to say that this is particularly a big problem for me. I think the approach should not be 1.x compatibility layer = yes, or 1.x compatibility layer = no. But how to keep bindings 1.x working for users who still need them, either via 1.x compatibility layer or another method, such as having another OH 1.9 instance linked by MQTT. Always…

[rswennen (Rohnny Swennen)]

I use this one New binding addon for siemens Hvac controller OZW672.01 which is not in the lis

[rlkoshak (Rich Koshak)]

That binding was never merged into the OH baseline so is out of scope. Only those bindings that are officially part of the OH baseline (i.e. can be found through PaperUI, have a readme page in the docs, hosted in the openhab/openhab1-addons repo are in the list. And it appears to not have received an update in years. If no developers stuck around to get it merged into the baseline in the first place, I doubt there are any around to rewrite it as a 2.x version binding.

In that thread in March sihui posted

New binding addon for siemens Hvac controller OZW672.01

As this project seems to be dead here is an alternative:

But that same post points to an external tool to make the integration possible.

[rswennen (Rohnny Swennen)]

Rich, fair enough. It is a workaround accessing the BSB directly via this opensource community device. However I won’t go that route, after having spent over 500€ on an official Siemens webserver with official APIs I prefer that. I don’t have the necessary java skills to write or change an OH binding but I found out that it’s actually very easy to interact with the OZW672.01 in Node Red. So I’ll use node red as interface and transfer data to and from OH via Node Red.