Hi Chris, Your PLC4J refactoring roadmap looks great. Prioritizing removal of Netty dependency is really good.
For all the rest - How much does this refactoring impact the overall API and other languages? I would vote for a release after PLC4J is Netty independent as this is a major milestone. Cheers, Lukas Am 27. November 2025 11:41:00 MEZ schrieb Christofer Dutz <[email protected]>: >Hi all, > >As many of you might know, mid of this year I applied for several public >research funding rounds with the main goal to refactor PLC4J to rid ourselves >of some of the technical debt we have piled up. Most of the work was around >rewriting the current SPI to work entirely without Netty. Beyond that to >implement a Transport layer that supports multiple connection instances to >share one transport instance (Like needed for ModbusRTU and BacNET, …) Also to >allow multiple transport instances being used by one connection instance (Like >for Profinet and Cesar’s S7 variant). > >Now it seems that both applications were judged favorably. Now I could need >some input from you guys where you see more need for cleaning up. > >So far, the tasks I applied and which I just got informed that they received >Funding are: > > > * >Implement new SPI > * >Implement new Read-/WriteBuffers that work without third party dependencies > * >Update the code generation framework > * >Implement a new system for pluggable transports > * >Implement the code for the concept of a layered protocol drivers > * >Update the existing drivers to use the new SPI > >The second package I would try to change the other would be: > > * >Implement a new Code-Generation for PLC4J based on JavaPoet (Getting rid of >freemarker (at least for Java)) > * >Implement a new connection-cache component > * >Implement a new Scraper alternative (able to use subscription-based triggers) > * >Implement a new Base-Driver that emulates subscriptions by using the new >scraper > * >Fix the issues in the S7 driver allowing us to merge the two back together > * >Add some Audit-Log functionality, that allows us to better diagnose issues > >Does that make sense from your perspective? >Anything missing you think I should focus on? > >I think a bit quicker feedback than usually here would be helpful, as I need >to finish the Sovereign Tech Fund paperwork as soon as possible. > >Chris
