My point about 4 line dependency is to point out that the barrier to entry into FX is low. What you are doing I would consider unconventional, as demonstrated by all of the hoops you're jumping through to achieve it. Packaging, yes, is still a bit arcane at this point.
My project, https://github.com/willhartung/planet packages macOS and Windows installers, and can be run as a fat jar on a Linux machine (tested on Ubuntu). You can look in there to see my POM file, and my build scripts. They're much simpler than what you're doing. I don't have a package for Linux, as I mentioned earlier, it was just a bit to confusing to figure out Linux packaging for my tastes, so I punted. If there was crushing demand for it, I'd look into it deeper.
None of those artifacts are "cross platform". It's not a single artifact for all platforms, they are platform specific. I build the Mac one on my machine, and the Windows and Linux versions on VMs. Currently, the vision for Java distribution is to bundle the runtime with the application. Use jlink and the module system to narrow down your JRE, and jpackage to combine them into an appropriate, platform artifact. jpackage requires to be run on the host OSs. I do not have ARM versions of any of my code yet.
If you want to ship a cross platform jar, then it's probably worth your time to require a JDK with FX already installed. Azul does this, I think there are others. Then the FX, and it's platform specific binaries, are no longer your applications problem.
Also, there is a project, https://jdeploy.com that offers tooling and infrastructure to distribute native FX bundles, it even offers automatic updates. It will install its own JDK in its own directory structure to run your applications. If you have multiple applications, it will share the JDKs among them. It's quite clever, and perhaps worth considering depending on your requirements. I chose to not do that just to make my projects as simple as practical for the end user and myself.
I'll be fair, getting to this point was not drag and drop. jpackage and jlink can be fiddly to get started with. Documentation can always be better.
> What you are doing I would consider unconventional
It wasn't before JavaFX was removed from the Oracle JRE. That is my point. JavaFX used to be a trivial dependency, but now it is quite painful in otherwise identical configurations, definitely not "low-impact."
> If you want to ship a cross platform jar
We do. Isn't that the point of Java, "write once run anywhere"?
This program is also used as a library in autograders. We do not want to distribute 5 versions of each autograder for 2-4 assignments. The autograder should be distributed as 1 jar. Undergrad TAs are creating that jar and may not have knowledge of complex CI pipelines etc.
> then it's probably worth your time to require a JDK with FX already installed.
That is not appropriate here. This is an educational tool, and students are enrolled in other courses that use Java frequently. We should be able to use the same JRE that students already have installed — it is unreasonable to require installing a different third-party JRE to run a digital logic simulator. It also adds another hurdle for freshmen/sophomores who may not have a natural ability for juggling different JRE installations. (Source: We tried requiring Azul and it was painful for everyone.)
> I do not have ARM versions of any of my code yet.
We have >900 students in this class, so it is necessary to support M1/M2; in fact, a large portion of our students had M1/M2 laptops. It sounds to me like you could just provide a fat jar in your case, actually. Supporting aarch64 is where we hit problems with our fat jar[1], since the aarch64 native libraries have the same name as the x86_64 libraries.
To summarize my point: yes you can make the build/install process more convoluted and avoid this problem. But we have an installation flow that has been battle-tested by thousands of students for 13 years (download circuit simulator .jar and run it) we have no good reason to abandon. The combination of the arrival of M1/M2 and JavaFX getting yanked from the JRE has made supporting our existing (extremely reasonable) flow nothing close to "low-impact."
My point about 4 line dependency is to point out that the barrier to entry into FX is low. What you are doing I would consider unconventional, as demonstrated by all of the hoops you're jumping through to achieve it. Packaging, yes, is still a bit arcane at this point.
My project, https://github.com/willhartung/planet packages macOS and Windows installers, and can be run as a fat jar on a Linux machine (tested on Ubuntu). You can look in there to see my POM file, and my build scripts. They're much simpler than what you're doing. I don't have a package for Linux, as I mentioned earlier, it was just a bit to confusing to figure out Linux packaging for my tastes, so I punted. If there was crushing demand for it, I'd look into it deeper.
None of those artifacts are "cross platform". It's not a single artifact for all platforms, they are platform specific. I build the Mac one on my machine, and the Windows and Linux versions on VMs. Currently, the vision for Java distribution is to bundle the runtime with the application. Use jlink and the module system to narrow down your JRE, and jpackage to combine them into an appropriate, platform artifact. jpackage requires to be run on the host OSs. I do not have ARM versions of any of my code yet.
If you want to ship a cross platform jar, then it's probably worth your time to require a JDK with FX already installed. Azul does this, I think there are others. Then the FX, and it's platform specific binaries, are no longer your applications problem.
Also, there is a project, https://jdeploy.com that offers tooling and infrastructure to distribute native FX bundles, it even offers automatic updates. It will install its own JDK in its own directory structure to run your applications. If you have multiple applications, it will share the JDKs among them. It's quite clever, and perhaps worth considering depending on your requirements. I chose to not do that just to make my projects as simple as practical for the end user and myself.
I'll be fair, getting to this point was not drag and drop. jpackage and jlink can be fiddly to get started with. Documentation can always be better.