Re: Including API Doc

> > >I've got a question on generated API documentation. > > >Should I include documentation generated by phpDocumentor in the > > >downloadable package, or is it sufficient to add it to peardoc? > > > > > >I think having an offline documentation is nice, but when there's > > >documentation available online, it just increases the package size... > > > > It would be nice if someone with phpdocumentor skills > > would add missing docs to peardoc so the doc teams > > could work with them. I personally can never get > > phpdocumentor to work... I feel the idea is to have > > phpdocumentor create the initial docs based off the > > commented code, and allow humans to keep it updated. > > Is this correct? Many packages (especially older > > ones) are missing from peardoc, but have well commented > > API code. > > version 1.2.1's peardoc converter was buggy, because at the time I had > no way of testing the output from it. 5 months of appeals to developers > to let me know about bugs yielded very few responses. Now I have linux > and 1.2.2, which is due to be released this week, has fully working > peardoc output. > > When you say you could never get it working, did you mean at all, or > just the peardoc output? I only tried generating peardoc output, and couldn't generate anything but skeletons... and many errors. It's been awhile since I tried, and I'm away from my computer, but do remember emailing you about Net_Geo but forget what came from that. I'll eventually try 1.2.2 but could you provide a rather detailed example on how to use with peardoc, with a pear class? Maybe Net_Cache or Net_Geo? If the comments within these classes do not adhere to PHPDoc standards, maybe write what the problem was, the fix, etc.? I know this is some extra hand holding but I believe peardoc and phpDocumentor would benefit, as would I! :) Regards, Philip