GH-3007: Ensure version specific Jackson classes are shaded

[ted-jenks]

Rationale for this change

The current jar contains version specific classes under META-INF/versions/... with unshaded package names. This leads to clashes with jackson and thus classpath duplicates. This is a major problem in many big projects right now (e.g. Spark).

What changes are included in this PR?

Ensure these classes are shaded.

Are these changes tested?

Are there any user-facing changes?

Closes #3007

[ted-jenks]

cc @wgtmac hey this is a pretty big issue for us. It is preventing us from taking other fixes. There might be a smarter way to do this but just wanted to kick this off - thanks 😄

[wgtmac]

@gszadovszky @Fokko Could you please help review this? Thanks!

[gszadovszky]

@ted-jenks, have you tried this one?
Otherwise, I am fine with the current solution. My only fear is we'll forget to update with the new java versions. It would be nice if we could handle it with some automatism.

[ted-jenks]

@gszadovszky I agree having the automation would be much better, but I cannot get that to work. When using <Multi-Release> the jar still have the unshaded classes. I think that the use of the relocations doesn't agree with it somehow? Not sure since it isn't really documented. The approach in this PR does work though.

[ted-jenks]

Would it be possible to get a minor release of this? It is kinda dangerous to use the current release with anything that has a different jackson version.

[ted-jenks]

@gszadovszky @Fokko @wgtmac any updates on this? sorry for pushing it is just blocking us taking some fixes right now.

[ted-jenks]

@gszadovszky @Fokko @wgtmac 🙏🏻 would be super helpful to get this through

[gszadovszky]

Sorry, @ted-jenks, I was on vacation. I've quickly checked the content of the jenkins jars on my local maven repo and found the following versions in META-INF/versions:
9, 11, 17, 19, and 21. Maybe, we should simply list every available java release here to be sure?
Unfortunately, I don't have time to manage a release currently. Maybe bring this up on the dev list after this PR went in.

[z-anderson]

@gszadovszky Thank you, I addressed your comment. (I work with Ted). #3017 . This is blocking us

[wgtmac]

Why do we pick up only 11/17/21 here?

[z-anderson]

In the new PR #3017, we pick up 9/11/17/19/21

[wgtmac]

For the next release, I think we can discuss on the dev@parquet ML. It may be the time to directly release 1.15.0 instead of 1.14.x

[gszadovszky]

@z-anderson, shall we close this PR in favor of #3017, then?

[z-anderson]

@z-anderson, shall we close this PR in favor of #3017, then?
@gszadovszky I think yes

[gszadovszky]

Closing this one in favor of #3017