Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Evaluate possibility to ship this app as an openHAB Extension #10

Open
pfink opened this issue Jan 13, 2019 · 2 comments
Open

Evaluate possibility to ship this app as an openHAB Extension #10

pfink opened this issue Jan 13, 2019 · 2 comments

Comments

@pfink
Copy link
Owner

pfink commented Jan 13, 2019

Kai suggested once to maybe get this shipped as an openHAB Extension using Jython. First, I was not convinced because I have doubts that the bluetooth part works under Jython. Anyhow, it's may possible to reimplement some parts so that one of the Bluetooth bindings can be used instead, so maybe it's worth a try.

I see two possible approaches. Either

  • compile this project with Jython and implement a seperate ESH/OSGi extension project that just uses relevant parts of the Jython-compiled Java Byte Code. The extension layer could also take care that the BT binding is used instead of the Python part (if necessary). OR
  • Try out the plain code as JSR223. Disadvantage: Other than the first solution, it requires Jython within the openHAB classpath. I wouldn't prefer this approach, but it's maybe a good option to start with and make first expieriences.

@kaikreuzer: Did you already had the time to try out this app? Regarding the first approach, I'm quite unsure where / how to start or what would be a proper architecture. Probably it's not (only?) a binding because it has to access the UI / Sitemap layer for configuration. If you have ideas / hints what would be the "right" or at least a good way for integration, that would be awesome!

@kaikreuzer
Copy link

No, unfortunately, I still haven't tried it out myself.
Considering the required effort, I'd actually suggest to go for the second option (that was also my idea when we spoke about it) - it would make the installation/packaging easier and if the existing code works on jsr223, there hopefully wouldn't be much work involved in getting it running. The first option rather sounds like a complete rewrite with many potential surprises (BT is a beast...).

@pfink
Copy link
Owner Author

pfink commented Jan 14, 2019

Thanks for your hint! I'll try out the JSR223 option within the next time :) What kind of packaging/installation do you have in mind? pip? Or is there an "openHAB-way" of doing it?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants