jamod flexibility

Kshitiz
2011-11-21
2013-05-28
  • Kshitiz

    Kshitiz - 2011-11-21

    Hi,

    I want to read data from various kind of meters like water meter, gas meter, electric meter, etc. I just want to know whether jamod will able to handle any kind of meter working on Modbus protocol. I mean, is it device independent or more factors need to be focused?

     
  • Julie Haugh

    Julie Haugh - 2012-08-05

    jamod is lacking many of the message types needed to work with commercially available meters.  If you're (still) looking for a more feature-rich Modbus library, please look at j2mod.  I added various messages that are used, especially by metering devices.

     
  • Dieter Wimberger

    Hi Julie:

    I have checked the Bug Tracker and I did not find a single bug that was reported by you.
    Then I have checked the Feature Requests and I did not find a single request that was filed by you.
    There was also not a single Patch filed by you, nor was there any Support Request.

    (Note: filtered for jfhaugh)

    I worked on this back in 2000 and it started on an embedded system, without any support for the serial protocols. Actually this support has been added by John, whom I am thankful for supporting his implementation ever since as well as he could.
    All of our work has been available to the public free of charge and under a license liberal enough to allow anybody to use it for their own efforts (even commercially without retribution).

    I have very often supported people that requested help from me directly and I have gone through some really difficult times, so that I might as well have sometimes left behind one or the other request (shame on me, but a roof above the head and some food on the table for my family might have been more important).

    Jamod might not be a product by itself, but for open source jamod is actually pretty well documented:
    http://dieter.wimpi.net/2007/03/os-project-feature-jamod.html
    http://dieter.wimpi.net/2010/04/jamod-some-faqs.html

    You would have been welcome to actually take a stake in jamod and help to make it better. But it's great that you took our work and derived something more useful from it. Many more have done this before you (and I have and will link those efforts from the site when I do updates again).

    If you think we are doing something wrong, please file a report and maybe even a possible fix, instead of pointing out everywhere that you are doing everything better and that jamod sucks.

    I am sorry if you feel that we did a bad job or that we didn't take your contributions (whereever they may have gone instead of into the trackers) into account.

    But please, for the sake of tolerance and my believe in humankind, stop bashing and start to be more constructive either here or over at your own project.

    Thanks and best regards,
    Dieter

     
  • Julie Haugh

    Julie Haugh - 2012-08-06

    Dieter,

    I'm sorry that you're offended.  You and I have had interaction in the past and my impression was you either didn't have the time for input, or weren't interested in it.

    I forget who it was (I'd have to look on the j2mod page to figure it out), but someone reported jamod as orphaned or abandoned (or whatever SourceForge calls it) and apparently you claimed it wasn't, so they didn't take it over.  I've watched your SVN checkins and I'm not seeing much by way of code, and certainly code to support the large number of messages that are missing from jamod.

    My company's products depend on having a rock solid, feature-rich, high-performance Modbus stack that "speaks" both Modbus/RTU and Modbus/TCP.  I invested about 200 hours working on jamod, and based on our interactions from 2009, you didn't seem all that interested in picking my work up.  So, I kept the private copy of my changes private, and slowly enhanced what I had.  I suspect I'm not the only jamod user who's made that same decision.

    When hardware that I'm planning to release (I'm a PLC/SCADA hardware OEM) required a more feature-rich stack, I decided it was time to stop keeping what I had to myself, and that's when I decided it was time to actually fork jamod and release what I've now spent about 400 hours working on.

    jamod has simply gone the way of a lot of open source projects.  Unless someone with a vested interest in keeping the project up to date is involved, it eventually stagnates.  The latest Modbus protocol specification includes a great many messages, many of which are very useful, that aren't in jamod.  I'm not saying you're a bad person, I'm just saying that jamod is very out of date and for developers who require a product with all the features in the most recent Modbus specification, jamod just isn't it.

     
  • Julie Haugh

    Julie Haugh - 2012-08-15

    Deiter,

    I would hope that the last few days, which is but a very small taste of the "bugs" I can open against "jamod", will have convinced you that j2mod is the right way to go.  I can continue to open "bug" reports against "jamod" for weeks and months to come.

    My company has a very strongly vested interested in making j2mod the #1 open source Java Modbus package available in the Open Source world.  I want you and John on my team, working to continue the development on j2mod, rather than playing catch-up on jamod.  What do you say?

     
  • John D Charlton

    John D Charlton - 2012-08-22

    I am not actively involved in development with jamod though I do respond when able to issues involving ModbusRTU protocol that I implemented.  I had a minor role in development limited to the ModbusRTU protocol so it is up to Deiter as to the future of jamod.

    That said it sounds like since j2mod has the backing of a company and active development it might be better to let the continued development move to j2mod.  Since the j2mod project is based on jamod it has Deiter's original creative work in designing and initial development as  the basis for an industrial open source modbus library.

    John

     

Log in to post a comment.