Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
That's quite useful though. For example after generating the HTML document I
use a
postProcess to copy the images and the stylesheet to the output directory. But
maybe
there is another way to do the same thing ?
Original comment by emmanuel...@gmail.com
on 18 Feb 2010 at 12:42
I think same.
Original comment by MimilO...@gmail.com
on 27 May 2010 at 12:38
I have found it useful as well for close to the same reason, but I do the
copying on
the preProcess side. All the docbook sources, static resources (CSS, images,
etc from
another project), XSL customization stylesheet (again from another project), and
custom XML entities DTD are copied to a staging folder which is what the docbkx
plugin runs over.
I have wondered if a better solution would be to create a new packaging type,
that
way you can create the lifecycle any way you want to. How to do this is beyond
me;
but one of the things I also do is package up everything as a code-less WAR for
easy
deployment to tomcat. For that, I also use the preProcess configuration to
generate a
minimal web.xml, set the POM packaging to "war", and my CI service (hudson)
deploys
the WAR to tomcat. Although I could use the assembly plugin to create the WAR,
removing preProcess/postProcess would mean I have to duplicate information
contained
in the POM (project name, version, and description) in the web.xml file. Of
course I
also realize that many people probably keep the documentation right along side
the
code, so a new packaging type would be somewhat cumbersome as it would require
a new
maven project.
I understand the desire to remove those items though - it can't be pretty to
call or
reimplement the maven-antrun-plugin; what's the recommended replacement for pre
and
post processing?
Original comment by jackd...@gmail.com
on 1 Jun 2010 at 10:17
Original comment by MimilO...@gmail.com
on 27 Aug 2013 at 6:06
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
wilfreds...@gmail.com
on 5 Feb 2010 at 9:12