<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Tzafrir Cohen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tzafrir.cohen@xorcom.com">tzafrir.cohen@xorcom.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 10:53:04AM -0600, Jeff Peeler wrote:<br>
<br>
> To summarize these threads, it appears that most are in favor of using<br>
> Doxygen in some fashion. Also, developers in the future will be responsible<br>
> as they make the API change to also change the associated documentation. To<br>
> get the process flowing, I'll find all the changes from 1.6.0 -> 1.6.1 and<br>
> post it on Review Board. I hope posting it will help ensure the exact format<br>
> and content expected will stand for all future uses.<br>
<br>
</div>I'd feel comfortable with doxygen if I know how this will look like. Can<br>
anybody give a short demonstration of how this document will be?</blockquote><div><br>I'm starting to think the original API document does not serve as a good model for what should be documented. Really, we should be able to use mostly what we already have unless somebody objects. I think the key difference can be use of the \version command (seems like tag would be a better name, but they say command). Then whenever an API is created or modified the \version information can be updated to the next version to be released. I'm assuming Doxygen supports parsing of specific tags, but if not a simple script could do so.<br clear="all">
</div></div><br>-- <br>Jeff Peeler<br>Digium, Inc. | Software Developer<br>445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA<br>Check us out at <a href="http://www.digium.com">www.digium.com</a> & <a href="http://www.asterisk.org">www.asterisk.org</a><br>