HI, I have a bad solution. What I've been doing has been generating the .cc/.h files, and then using doxygen to document those classes. You can document C++ classes from files other than the header files that define the classes. It's messy, error prone, and you end up with a lot of extra methods document that you really don't want. In summary, I'd suggest doing it another way. The detailed message documentation is lost in a sea of undocumented methods.
In the past, I have started working on patching doxygen to read and parse .proto files. I didn't get as far as I would have liked. I also looked at using the compiler/parser that is part of the protobuf source code, but that strips out the comments. My other thought was to use a custom option for the comment string. Then writer a Python script that read in the descriptor proto file, and generated documentation from that. The other thought I had was to patch the C++ code generator class to generate comments in the source files in the doxygen format, but I didn't want to tie the code generator to a documentation format. I still think the best option would be to update doxygen to support reading the .proto files, but it is also the most work (maybe not in the long term). Mark On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 8:28 PM, bart van deenen <bart.vandee...@gmail.com>wrote: > > Hi all > > How do you document .proto files? I'd love to really define our > protocol with javadoc/qtdoc/doxygen tags inside the .proto files, and > generate html documentation from that. > > Does anyone already have a solution, or something in the works that we > can improve on? > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---