Future versions

General TRichView support forum. Please post your questions here
TW
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 2:06 pm

Re: Future versions

Post by TW »

jgkoehn, I'm not Sergey, but a user. I just wanted to know more, that's all:)
jgkoehn
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:32 pm

Re: Future versions

Post by jgkoehn »

Ah oops hehe sorry about that
Sergey Tkachenko
Site Admin
Posts: 17253
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 10:28 am
Contact:

Re: Future versions

Post by Sergey Tkachenko »

DocX import is planned, but not soon.
Current plans:
- porting Report Workshop to Lazarus
- probably, native HTML import (it was completed by 80% several years ago; I'll see, if it can be completed in about a month, I'll do it)
- porting TRichView to FMX for Windows
jonjon
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Future versions

Post by jonjon »

I'm missing DocX import too. The Microsoft Office Converter solution is not a good long-term solution, yet we've had to use it for a very long time now :(
It can take a lot of time and computer resources to convert large DocX documents to RTF, then a lot of time for RV to import that RTF. And as far as I can tell, it is not even possible to download it from Microsoft anymore.
I fear that it might break with a future Windows / Office update, and as it is not supported by Microsoft anymore, it will be leaving us without any DocX import capabilities for TRichView.
I'm glad to see native HTML import in your list though!
Pieter E.
Posts: 834
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 9:34 am

Re: Future versions

Post by Pieter E. »

Thank you Sergey, for your update on future plans of development. Import native HTML would be excellent! :D :D :D
dkounal
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 4:51 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Future versions

Post by dkounal »

Sergey Tkachenko wrote: Fri May 01, 2020 5:40 pm Current plans:
- porting Report Workshop to Lazarus
- probably, native HTML import (it was completed by 80% several years ago; I'll see, if it can be completed in about a month, I'll do it)
- porting TRichView to FMX for Windows
Do we expect an FMX version of Trichview in 2020 or should we expect it next year?
Thank you in advance
Sergey Tkachenko
Site Admin
Posts: 17253
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 10:28 am
Contact:

Re: Future versions

Post by Sergey Tkachenko »

I planned to start FMX conversion in this summer. But now I have DocX and Markdown works that are sponsored, so I cannot resist. So FMX starts is moved to the end of autumn.
jgkoehn
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:32 pm

Re: Future versions

Post by jgkoehn »

I look forward to DocX thanks!
rdevine
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:27 am

Re: Future versions

Post by rdevine »

Hi Sergey

I could really make use of an FMX version that works on MacOS (and possibly Linux) but the post above implies Windows-only? The real value of FMX for me would be a cross-platform capability.

Kind regards, Bob
Sergey Tkachenko
Site Admin
Posts: 17253
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 10:28 am
Contact:

Re: Future versions

Post by Sergey Tkachenko »

It's too hard to make it cross-platform from the beginning. The first version will be for Windows, than other platforms will be added.
dave novo
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:13 am

Re: Future versions

Post by dave novo »

Hi Sergey,

Just my 2 cents here. The only reason to write an FMX version is for cross platform. Otherwise, I would just just stick with VCL. VCL is faster, more stable than firemonkey.

I can see the argument that why does anyone need trichview for Android or iOS. There are very very few applications, if any, that require a fully featured word processor on the phone, above and beyond the built in editor the phone provides.

The main point of FMX would be to provide trichview to mac OS. I would be worried that if you design for windows first, and then mac later, you will fall into the trap of putting in too many windows specific stuff and when you want to do mac it will be hard. I would think that at least always ensuring that the FMX works on windows and mac for the new functionality is important.
Post Reply