Superlegend light bulb


a while ago I bought one of these WIFI bulbs and created a binding to control it.
Is it interesting to anyone?

A major advantage of these bulbs is that besides a very common WIFI router you need no other hardware like you usually have for bluetooth bulbs or milight controller.


I’m pretty sure it is ALWAYS interesting to have new bindings available.
Even if nobody else is using it at the moment, people will start to use it as soon as a binding is available.

Edit: maybe you can use that link to get information about contributing your binding:
Continuing the discussion from New biding addon for siemens Hvac controller OZW672.01:

Agreed with the one caution that a binding that only interacts with a simple REST API and nothing more (e.g. doesn’t implement Oauth authentication, doesn’t manage complex payloads, implements an a REST API that depends on sending information in the body of the request, etc) it is far better to use the existing bindings than it is to add new ones. There are already over 130 bindings and it was testing and reviewing all of those bindings that caused the release of 1.8 to be delayed. Therefore, IMHO, a binding should provide a capability that I can’t already do in with the existing bindings.

But that is just my opinion which really doesn’t count for much as I’m not a maintainer at this time.

1 Like

[quote=“rlkoshak, post:3, topic:6362, full:true”]
Agreed with the one caution …[/quote]

Completely agree!
But for me as a normal user and non programmer it was not evident that the superlegend light bulb binding is based on the REST Api …

I don’t know if it is. My comment was more generic in nature and not necessarily applicable to the Superlegend’s API.

[quote=“rlkoshak, post:5, topic:6362, full:true”]
My comment was more generic …[/quote]

Alright, then it makes sense to me :sunglasses:


@sihui: ok, think I prepare a pull request then.

@rlkoshak: this specific binding has a somewhat weird byte-based tcp interface with checksum - think it’s not easy to accomplish that with any other binding. But I also agree to your “generic idea”.


Sounds like an excellent candidate for a new binding.