xsharp.eu

Dragan Nedeljković wrote:The browse...name and manipulating the automatic grid that gets created in the background could be something applicable now, with just the same trick applied. Whenever there's a browse command, a grid would be created with some default values and that's it. That's what Fox does anyway. Syntactically, not all the clauses are required - the validation, width, saving the setup in foxuser and several other things were rarely used (I know I used them last in FPD). The ability to select fields, including calculated, and to designate scope (browse ... rest, browse ... key) would really help.

Robert did post the way of doing such with SCAN, so it might be a good exercise for a VFP guy to enhance the BROWSE/DbBrowser() I posted. And seeing the Runtime is available on GitHub, one can peek at the DbLocate function etc. to see how it is done...

Guys,

We will update the list in the next days.
Adding support for commands like Browse, Edit, Append etc is certainly possible.
But first we need to decide if:
- we will recreate the VFP UI class hierarchy
- port VFP forms and controls to standard .Net controls

And of course there has to be a business case. We need a few people from the VFP community that are willing to invest in this by subscribing to our Friends Of XSharp program or otherwise.
We have already invested quite some time / money to add the basic VFP support to the product and on top of that we have invested time and money to go to SW Fox next week.
If there is enough interest in the VFP community then we'll make it work.

Robert

Robert - Please ads SQLEXEC() and SQLSTRINGCONNECT( ) to the list.

I’d like to suggest that you move all of the N/A entries down to a separate category with the heading of “Will Not be Implemented.”

That would allow them to be examined separately and potentially lead to any other comments or concerns and we keep the upper area which a little cleaner to assess the state of everything

Matt,

Matt Slay wrote:Robert - Please ads SQLEXEC() and SQLSTRINGCONNECT( ) to the list.

There are no functions at all in the list. They will all be implemented

Robert

Matt,

Matt Slay wrote:I’d like to suggest that you move all of the N/A entries down to a separate category with the heading of “Will Not be Implemented.”

That would allow them to be examined separately and potentially lead to any other comments or concerns and we keep the upper area which a little cleaner to assess the state of everything

I will update the list next week.

Robert

I think the problem with getting support from the VFP community is that a lot of cross-compiler or VFP-to-.NET type solutions have been proposed over the years and none has worked out. Alaska Software, for example, has been talking about a cross compiler called PolarFox since I think around 2010. I believe the VFP community will become more excited about this project as it progresses; but you're in kind of catch-22 situation in that you need that support in order to move it forward.

Hi Kevin - Indeed there have been others beside Polar Fox we well...

Do you remember eTecnologia.net that came out with .Net Extender for VFP and VFP Developer Studio.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130304153 ... logia.net/

[hr]
And VFP Studio from Craig Boyd and Bo Durban (www.vfpstudio.com) now a dead web site, but man, what a cool logo they had. "Let the countdown begin..." was the catch phrase and the website had a live counting-down digital clock with a cool logo:

Guys,
maybe the other tries broke due to the same negligence of the target group, to put some work and/or money, where their mouth is? You want it, so approach Robert and offer your assistance. If you don't feel qualified, enter FOX and give Dev the money, allowing them to invest their time for your wishes. It's as easy...

Hi All,
I'm new to this forum but have been a Dbase, Clipper, and then VFP programmer since the early 1980's. As we have clients that are sensitive to our still developing applications in VFP, we have had to show them that we can easily port all of our code to Harbour/HMG. (Please note that our code is light on the use of VFP GUI and reporting features, so this is easier for us than others.) There are discussions on both Harbour and HMG users group forums discussing how to make Harbour easier to transition to for VFP coders. A link one such discussion that may be helpful is here: http://www.hmgforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3905

I have also found that members on the boards (especially the HMG board) are very willing to help in the development of enhancements. I suspect that their satisfaction with Harbour/HMG may make members less likely to contribute monetarily here at least in terms of the levels required to become a "Friend of XSharp". (It might be worth considering whether a $100 contribution level might actually generate more contributions than the $1,000/$825 level.)

Regards,

Jeff