Fusedocs took the route of embedding and XML packet in a comment at the top of the file. It's not the most elegant solution, but it works pretty well. And when you think about it, that's really all Javadocs are, just not XML-based. Since XML won't let you put CF comments inside, ripping out the XML is as simple as pulling everything between the first instance of <!--- and the first instance of --->
If you really wanted to go for broke, you could pick some custom comment initiator like Javadoc does, and then use comment all over your CFCs for the doc generation, and the actual CFC metadata would become supplementary, not the main focus. Like "<!--#" or something. cheers, barneyb On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:04:46 -0500, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've been working on a system to self-document my CFCs. Using additional > metadata on fields and a custom property-definition mechanism I've been able > to include property information, "throws" information and a few other things > easily. > > My hope is to create a tool which can condense all of this information into > an XML packet for later transformation. > > Right now I'm hitting a block. My end immediate goal is to create HTML > documentation. I would like to have a section of the documentation (perhaps > several paragraphs) which describes the CFC and a section which lists the > revision history of the CFC. > > I would like to do this in the CFC itself if possible (making the CFC truly > self documenting) but am torn on how. > > I'm not completely comfortable with putting HTML directly into the "Hint" > attributes (what if, later I wanted to output it some other way). For > something like "Revision" were there can be many entries an attribute isn't > the best thing anyway. > > I've considered adding a formatted comment the CFC with the information in > it - but I'd like it more structured than that if possible (so that > formatting can be applied later). > > I'm now considering putting a commented XML packet in the CFC containing the > information - but this would mean that the packet would need to be edited by > hand when adding a revision (not the worst thing in the world really). I'd > also have to define that packet explicitly. > > The other option is to have a documentation page that has description and > history and just use the introspection features to get property and method > information... but that splits potentially important information from the > CFC. > > Anybody else done anything like this? Any more ideas before I settle on > something stupid? > > Thanks, > > Jim Davis -- Barney Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 360.319.6145 http://www.barneyb.com/ Got Gmail? I have 50 invites. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:199412 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
