On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Antoine Labour <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Jeremy Orlow<[email protected]> wrote: > > For what it's worth, I was really impressed by the O3D documentation: > > http://code.google.com/apis/o3d/docs/index.html > > Not sure how they did it, but I believe it was all generated. Not sure > if > > that's close enough to what you had envisioned. > > About O3D: for API docs, we put it in our IDL files that describe the > bindings to JavaScript (it's a custom IDL language, somewhat close to > WebIDL, but not quite the same). From there, the way it works today is > that we generate C++ headers, that we feed to Doxygen, we parse the > output to make it more JS-y and less C++-y, and then some extra magic > steps happen to make it look pretty. In some future though, we'll > directly generate a JS "header" and use jsdoc-toolkit. > The good thing is that the doc doesn't clutter C++ files which are the > meat of the plugin, but lives in the IDL which describe the API > itself, and though that's somewhat specific to our case, it works very > nicely: if you're working on the interface, the doc is right there to > edit, if you're just changing the implementation you don't have to > worry about it. This is quite a bit more heavyweight than Aaron's proposal. That said, gluing some existing systems together (like mentioned) probably is less effort than inventing a new way to do docs. In addition, the generation phase probably isn't that big of a deal; you can make a cron job to do it (or something like that). --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
