Where´s a good place to discuss this topic or things like changes of the oH startup process in oH3?
There are plenty of discussions in the forum around those topics already. What is missing is a way to come to decisions that’s why I was saying above:
Before going into any discussions & decisions on this, I would like to establish some more formal governance
So please be patient for a few more days. The right place will then probably be https://community.openhab.org/c/development/architecture.
See Next generation design : Ideas & Discussions for a discussion on this that has already taken place.
The startup process has at least one open issue on ESH’s Github which will presumably be moved to OH during this transfer process.
:+1 This. Yes. We come up with great ideas but there is no one to say “yes, do that”. I look forward to seeing what the governance mechanism looks like and what the flow would be from discussions like the one I linked to above would go from discussion on the forum to issue on github to implementation to release (particularly this last part).
As someone who has self dubbed himself the non-technical user advocate, I’d like to be kept in the loop on this. I’ll definitely be watching the architecture topic area.
I think this will be painful in the short term but put OH in a better place for the long term. I look forward to what the future brings! Thanks for the announcement!
Yes, an exciting announcement indeed. Thank you for the update on openHAB’s future. Happy to pitch in on removing the references from the documentation.
thanks for the update. Somehow it is a pitty and in the other hand there is a big chance to make things simpler.
You can fully count on me, as maintainer and also on home-iX with our support in this hard time and path. We need to make sure to keep the Framework approach for companies using OH-core than. On the other hand I agree, we must louder communicate and spread the word. A good thing is, that I assume that most commercial usage will than need to mention OH and not ESH anymore. At least on our side we will start to communicate this, when we really have this situation.
I see much potential in it and we remain strong.
Lets make the best out of it!
what about the Eclipse Marketplace?
Will it be removed from OH2 ?
Good question. Yes at some point it will as the future of the Eclipse Market place itself with regards to Smart Home is not clear. If Eclipse Smart Home would discontinue it would not add any value to have the Market Place for the eclipse organisation. Since it’s a (under)valued way to get new (beta) bindings to users I would expect there will be a replacement in openHAB.
Yes, the Marketplace will stay available for openHAB 2.x, but for openHAB 3 we will come up with a replacement for it.
Short progress update:
- openhab2-addons has been switched from EPLv1 to EPLv2 already (thanks @hilbrand!). Please note that this will likely require some updates on many existing PRs, such as re-running the license header updates.
- A WIP PR to bring the ESH core bundles to openhab-core (and which switches the build to plain Maven) has been created (thanks @maggu2810!).
- A WIP PR to bring the ESH extensions to openhab2-addons has been created.
Please also add documentation regarding migration path from ESH to Openhab-core ?
We were using https://github.com/maggu2810/smarthome-packaging-sample-karaf for building ESH solution now do we get a new Openhab-core packaging solution.
We feel it is a good move to bring ESH under OH roof and now communication will be much smoother and clear.
@Kai: Thanks for your work as a ESH-Project Lead!
Anyway - I guess in 5 years tons of homes will be connected and smart. Please let us take care that companies can use openhab or an openhab-based system as the core of their maybe commercial system! Will that be still possible if ESH is getting stopped?
@Kai: I have just read your post to the ESH mailing list. Did you receive any feedback from the ESH community?
@Kai: can you please clarify and reassure us that you will continue being involved in openHAB as much as before and that you only give up with ESH ? At least, that is what I hope…
See above: “We would like to keep openhab-core in a “framework-style” similar to ESH, so that it is possibly to package it in different ways and that it is not only usable by the openHAB distro.”
See above: “please be re-assure, that although I step down as a project lead of ESH, I stay fully committed to openHAB and its community!”
The withdrawal of all full-time developers by Deutsche Telekom, the lack of other companies willing to take responsibility for the core framwork as well as the disengagement of the Eclipse Foundation raises the question whether the openHAB community and the openHAB Foundation can increase their efforts to absorb the loss (at least partly).
I’m still convinced that we need more (not less) full-time development engagement into the project as there are very important tasks which aren’t usually be done by spare-time enthusiasts and that are, in some cases, even now a bottleneck already. Also, I’m aware that many users are willing to fund general core framework development if there would be an attractive and easy way to do it.
Maybe this is also the time to dicuss and rethink how we can, on a long-term basis and with a growing community, setup a core development and maintenance funding that is not necessarily dependent on any major commercial involvement. Maybe our community is big enough to bring something substantial on it’s way, but maybe it’s also still too small. Anyhow, probably it’s better to start these discussions too early than too late.
If I can help in any way with our upcoming organisational/governance challenges, let me know.
That’s why I proposed this:
A lot of communities are doing this nowadays. The entire web-page source code is open source as well btw.
Personally I’d love to work more on OH, but yeah, time and other duties.
The good thing is: The eclipse foundation made sure we are not violating 3rd party rights / patents.
And OSGi made sure that single parts can be swapped out with better variants at any time, so that code smelling is not that big of an issue.
good thing is that we have a TON of testers
@David_Graeff: Yes, but this is the second step before the first one. Board of directors was not tired to emphasize that the foundation can’t/won’t fund development activities. I think it can be a topic for this year’s general assembly how to proceed in the future. Currently, we’re in a dead end.
I’ve written a small tutorial to help developers with updating their open pull request to use the new license: