Split jpms modules into independet artifacts instead of classifier based solution

[matthiasblaesing]

The jna-platform artifact depends on jna - this leads to problems when
the JPMS artifacts are used, as the pom.xml for the classifier based
artifacts are identical to the base artifacts. This leads to

  <dependency>
    <groupId>net.java.dev.jna</groupId>
    <artifactId>jna-platform</artifactId>
    <version>5.7.0</version>
    <classifier>jpms</classifier>
  </dependency>

depending on

  <dependency>
    <groupId>net.java.dev.jna</groupId>
    <artifactId>jna</artifactId>
    <version>5.7.0</version>
  </dependency>

so the jna-platform JPMS artifacts pulls in the non-JPMS jna artifact.

To solve this, both artifacts are moved into their own groupId. So

  <dependency>
    <groupId>net.java.dev.jna</groupId>
    <artifactId>jna-platform</artifactId>
    <version>5.8.0</version>
    <classifier>jpms</classifier>
  </dependency>

becomes

  <dependency>
    <groupId>net.java.dev.jna.jpms</groupId>
    <artifactId>jna-platform</artifactId>
    <version>5.8.0</version>
  </dependency>

[matthiasblaesing]

@dbwiddis @neilcsmith-net you two experimented with the JPMS artifacts. What do you think about this change?

[dbwiddis]

I think I prefer it as it's more self-documenting. It's the direction I chose with my project as well, although I also plan to include other Java9+ features.

Not sure why a new groupID is preferred to a new artifactId, but from a downstream implementation perspective it's pretty much the same.

[matthiasblaesing]

@dbwiddis yes I'm still pondering the groupId vs artifactId question (lets paint the bikeshed :-)).

Option 1 (GroupId):

 <dependency>
   <groupId>net.java.dev.jna.jpms</groupId>
   <artifactId>jna</artifactId>
   <version>5.8.0</version>
 </dependency>

  <dependency>
    <groupId>net.java.dev.jna.jpms</groupId>
    <artifactId>jna-platform</artifactId>
    <version>5.8.0</version>
  </dependency>

Option 2 (ArtifactId):

  <dependency>
    <groupId>net.java.dev.jna</groupId>
    <artifactId>jna-jpms</artifactId>
    <version>5.8.0</version>
  </dependency>

  <dependency>
    <groupId>net.java.dev.jna</groupId>
    <artifactId>jna-platform-jpms</artifactId>
    <version>5.8.0</version>
  </dependency>

[dbwiddis]

I like both paint colors in preference to the existing unpainted bike shed for the following reason:

• I could add a property in my pom.xml to add or remove the -jpms conditionally based on other factors in the build.

I prefer paint color option 2 for the following reason:

• When I want to see all JNA artifacts at Maven, I would see it right there. With a different groupID I'd have to know it exists to even go looking for it.
  • See for example my project where you instantly get a menu of "oh, a shaded artifact, or a Java11 artifact".
  • See for example Hibernate whose inclusion of separate artifactIds for different java versions was what inspired me to make my choice
  • Or see the same examples and say "that's confusing with so many artifacts, they should be in separate groups.

[dbwiddis]

In the interest of confusing it even more, there's always color 3, making the existing JPMS-compatible MRJAR the primary artifact and letting the few people with a broken build use an older compatible artifact. :-)

[neilcsmith-net]

FWIW, I think the artefact ID is the way to go. I was going to suggest looking at the solution other projects are using, but I'm not keen on the -java11 suffix - -jpms is far more explicit, even if the JDK teams want us all to stop using it. Short but version neutral acronym seems good!

I would leave color 3 until JNA 6.x - then switch to possibly having a -jdk8 or -legacy or -non-jpms option if desired.

[dbwiddis]

I'm not keen on the -java11 suffix - -jpms is far more explicit

Agreed if the only change is the module descriptor. In my case I plan on including other JDK 11+ features so -jpms wasn't broad enough (although I considered and rejected -mrjar).

I would leave color 3 until JNA 6.x

Agree here too!

[dbwiddis]

this needs updating to match the change to artifactId.

[matthiasblaesing]

I squashed the changes, adjusted the wording of the change log and will merge tomorrow if noone objects till then.