MINOR: [Docs] Update docs to point to separate Java codebase

[ParthChonkar]

Rationale for this change

Post #44945 the Java implementation lives in it's own repo. Update docs
to point there.

What changes are included in this PR?

Updates to a few locations that reference old Java impl location.

Are these changes tested?

Rendered the Sphinx ones locally to check.

Are there any user-facing changes?

No

[ParthChonkar]

These changes are pretty trivial + are mainly for docs that aren't specifically related to java.

Though one remaining issue is that the following pages/sub-pages

• Java Development Page
• Java API/User Docs

still live in this repo which I assume isn't desired 🤔 .

[kou]

@github-actions crossbow submit preview-docs

[github-actions]

Revision: 1a0d89952832dc4ec94e4b9fbee3f4645aa4e05f

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-c3413aeb10

Task	Status
preview-docs

[kou]

Could you also update cd arrow/java too in http://crossbow.voltrondata.com/pr_docs/45134/developers/java/building.html ?

[ParthChonkar]

@github-actions crossbow submit preview-docs

[github-actions]

Only contributors can submit requests to this bot. Please ask someone from the community for help with getting the first commit in.
The Archery job run can be found at: https://github.com/apache/arrow/actions/runs/12575895325

[ParthChonkar]

Building JNI libs with maven is broken until the pom.xml file is updated in arrow-java to avoid passing -S java to cmake among other problems.

[kou]

Should we wait for apache/arrow-java#449 ?

[ParthChonkar]

Yup, I'll wait on apache/arrow-java#449.

Will this order work?

• GH-13: Set up JNI build (dataset, etc.) arrow-java#449 lands
• I'll try to verify each build path and update the docs on this PR -> merge it into apache/arrow
• [Docs] Migrate java development and usage docs from apache/arrow  arrow-java#472 [Doc] Generate Java documentation arrow-java#455 (I can try to cherry-pick the commits in the docs in a similar way that was done for the source code)
• Remove java docs from apache/arrow

[kou]

Yes. Let's use the order.

[ParthChonkar]

Bit unfamiliar with archery, but I couldn't find any directives/targets for java-jni-manylinux-2014 in any of the dockerfiles between both repos.

[kou]

We can use docker compose instead of Archery.
apache/arrow-java uses docker compose directly instead of via Archery.

[ParthChonkar]

Ah I see, after apache/arrow-java#449 I can replace the archery sections with docker compose

[ParthChonkar]

Could you also update cd arrow/java too in http://crossbow.voltrondata.com/pr_docs/45134/developers/java/building.html ?

Updated + tweaked the build instructions for the JNI libraries. I commented on this review a few more problems in the "building Java" docs. Some need source fixes to be done in arrow-java - could these updates be made once the java documentation has moved to apache/arrow-java maybe?

[kou]

@github-actions crossbow submit preview-docs

[github-actions]

Revision: 197369e7e47c028314eafa538a3670f0907dfe79

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-88de21002f

Task	Status
preview-docs

[ParthChonkar]

Apologies was a bit delayed here. I see that building.rst has been moved to arrow-java in https://github.com/apache/arrow-java/pull/553/files.

A significant portion of that file needs to be updated - even with the existing changes I have in this PR.

Given the above, could I leave building.rst out of this PR? The other two updates are for files that will remain in this repo.
I believe it'll make more sense to update the java/building.rst documentation iteratively in arrow-java.

[kou]

Yes, please.

[ParthChonkar]

Reverted building.rst changes

[kou]

@github-actions crossbow submit preview-docs

[github-actions]

Revision: 26a6cf8

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-ba09884753

Task	Status
preview-docs

[kou]

+1

http://crossbow.voltrondata.com/pr_docs/45134/developers/guide/step_by_step/arrow_codebase.html

[conbench-apache-arrow]

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 4 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit aaa88e9.

There were 8 benchmark results with an error:

• Commit Run on arm64-t4g-2xlarge-linux at 2025-01-30 09:04:52Z
  • tpch (R) with engine=arrow, format=native, language=R, memory_map=False, query_id=TPCH-03, scale_factor=1
  • tpch (R) with engine=arrow, format=parquet, language=R, memory_map=False, query_id=TPCH-03, scale_factor=1
• and 6 more (see the report linked below)

There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉

The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 5 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them.