It’s in the repo too… openhab1-addons/bundles/binding/org.openhab.binding.fht at main · openhab/openhab1-addons · GitHub. Hmmm. I’ll do a comparison of the repo and the feature.xml to see if there are any others. I’m not the best to answer questions about why this was done or how it was not included… but I don’t think this is normal. Maybe an OH1 maintainer could help out here?
1 Like
I understand the MQTT has a newer version but I still use the old 1.x version and I could not see that in the list. The new one still has capability gaps AFAIK and will involve some serious effort for me to migrate and I am currently not on my planned list of changes.
Regards
Paul
3 Likes
I feel a lesson approaching… there are 96 addons in the feature.xml and 217 addons in the repo. So there are a LOT of addons missing from the poll. I don’t know what the difference is between the addons in the feature.xml and the ones that are not. @kai, could you please explain why some OH1.x addons are not in the feature.xml?
The 1.x mqtt binding was marked as legacy after it was migrated to 2.x. I did not include any of the legacy addons in the poll, as they already have 2.x versions. If there there are gaps in functionality between a 1.x and 2.x addon, you should open issues so that they can be addressed. If you feel a need to discuss this, the first link in the OP is a good topic for it, or please open your own. This topic is merely to get an idea of which 1.x addons are getting the most use.
If SNMP doesn’t make the cut to OH 3; I will be very busy trying to find another solution to track phones connecting to my wireless. And before anyone asks about arping, it will not work for my infrastructure as my OH sits in a different subnet from my wireless clients
Happy to test any new developments for a SNMP OH 3 SNMP binding!
1 Like
@kai, could you please explain why some OH1.x addons are not in the feature.xml?
That’s very simple: Nobody ever has tested it and confirmed that it is working with OH2 (while it is available as a bundle for OH1) and thus it has not been added to the 2.x distro. See https://www.openhab.org/docs/developer/legacy/compatibilitylayer.html#how-to-add-a-successfully-tested-1-x-add-on-to-the-distribution for details.
2 Likes
Thank you, Kai! I’ve included them in the poll now.
It’s in there now!
1 Like
Vote here, discuss there…
3 Likes
This is fantastic, however I have no idea what to do/how to proceed with these; nothing that needs to go into detail here. I’m gong to do some reading and see if I can figure it out.
Excellent, thanks! The FHT binding now has at least one vote 
1 Like
Anybody who votes on one of these should make a PR that adds it to the distro!
1 Like
These could be getting votes from people who are still using them in OH1 though. So, only people using them in OH2 should follow the steps to get them into the distribution.
Would be nice to have a feature to create those statistics from openHAB. Either as a feature to activate or on purpose.
Of course there should be a unique id to be sent with, to prevent miscounting.
But this would mean that data is collected. It’s like the old feature “show openHAB installations on google maps” which disappeared some years ago.
2 Likes
But to be useful, that feature needs to have been already in OH.
Are you volunteering time travel to go back and add it for us? 
Yes for now.
But who can guarantee that OH4 will not break compatibility to OH2 Bindings?
1 Like
Those people should not really vote here as it does not make a difference for them whether the compatibility layer of OH2 is kept or not. They can continue using those bindings with a 1.x runtime forever 
.
2 Likes
I did not see the Mail Action in the list. Is it possible that such a commonly used Action never was promoted to the compatibility list?
1 Like
The OH2 Mail binding has a mail action, so the OH1 mail action was marked as legacy. None of the legacy addons were included in the poll.