topic Re: Customizing 4.2.f with AMP in Alfresco Archive

Customizing 4.2.f with AMP

bdmc — Tue, 14 Jul 2015 15:49:54 GMT

I have been trying to build an AMP file, using Maven and the 4.2.f SDK, with no apparent success.Yes, when I do "maven install -Prun" I am able to access the system using "http://localhost:8080/share," but my changed logo image does not appear; I only see the default Alfresco Community logo.I have b

Re: Customizing 4.2.f with AMP

gravitonian — Fri, 17 Jul 2015 11:40:13 GMT

Hi,

The 1.1.1 version of the Alfresco SDK does not come with a Share AMP module. So you would have to add one to the AIO project. Also, the Aikau stuff at the end of the article/blog is not relevant to 4.2.f as it only got Aikau code in menu and title.

I have created a new 1.1.1 SDK project with an extra Share AMP module and implemented the logo and footer customization according to the article. You can access here: https://github.com/gravitonian/all-in-one111-share-amp

Re: Customizing 4.2.f with AMP

bdmc — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 20:00:59 GMT

Martin,

I apologise for the long delay in responding to you. I have been on the road, and other issues have seemed to take precedence.

Thank you very much for preparing this package for me. I was using the article/blog as a starting point, but did not need, or want, the Aikau part, anyway. There are certain customisations, such as Logo and E-Mail text, that we apply to the system every time that we re-install the WAR files, and would like to package those changes in an AMP to make the system easier to update.

I have been working on it today, and think that I am doing things correctly – I started with "mvn clean," and followed with "mvn install," but there is where things seem to break.

It is complaining that there are duplicate definitions of "org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin" and "org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-resources-plugin." I found those in the solr pom file, ( which we don't need anyway, since we use Lucene ) but they appear to be independent. One is in "run" and one — hmmm. They have different "execution" sections, but at the plugin level, they do seem to be the same. Can you have two different execution sections for the same plugin? In other words, if I move the second execution section into the first plugin definition, would this work correctly?

Thank you,
Brian