harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Nadya Morozova" <nad.moroz...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [doc] A better javadoc?
Date Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:41:05 GMT

I won't get your hopes too high, but if you really need this, I can play
some tricks to make these docs more readable by:
- adding styles to color- and font-separate parts of info
- adding a TOC on the left instead of those tabs, TOC can be a drop-down
menu which also acts as a list of classes
- adding a small frame which shows members of a class and each member on a
separate page instead of all functions on one page (i have only done this
for C code so far, but Java should also be ok)
- looking at current markup and suggesting changes that Doxygen would
understand better (we could then accumulate those changes and make them a
cleanup script; it won't always work because diff authors use diff markups,
but some things it'll fix for sure)
- i don't know, play some more...

On Jan 31, 2008 8:18 PM, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:

> Nadya Morozova wrote:
> > I won't say I'm a vigorous fan of Doxygen for fear of being disliked by
> Java
> > programmers, but I think a tool that parses both C and Java code is
> > preferable for a project that has both. I've used Doxygen for a while
> now,
> > and although some things might get tricky and you have to do stupid
> things
> > to have output your way, Doxygen is generally rather good. My expertise
> is a
> > bit more limited in regard to Javadoc.
> That's cool, I know you are a documentation wizz <g>.  What sort of
> thing do you think we can do with the code comments we have got already?
> > Perhaps, if you gave specific examples of what you want to achieve, i'd
> say
> > whether and how it could be done.
> Make it usable, and pretty :-)
> > I don't know any freeware auto-generation
> > tools that do as good as these two. I've wanted to use a commercial tool
> > DocOMatic on a different project (just out of curiosity, why do they
> want us
> > to pay $1000 for it?) - but failed, because the tool had no free trial!
> >
> > Anyway, to the best of my knowledge, we don't have much choice in API
> > documentation generation tools. We could tweak the existing tools,
> and/or
> > post-process the resulting docs to get the results we want.
> > I'd be happy to see somebody prove me wrong, so that we get a better
> tool
> > for our docs.
> Ah well, I guess we have to keep banging sticks and rocks together for
> the time being.
> Regards,
> Tim


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message