Rename the name of the new analyzer jar file from new_analyzer.jar to

Rename the name of the new analyzer jar file from new_analyzer.jar to
dartanalyzer.jar (which I think will be the preferred name for it in
the SDK).

Update the test framework for these renames.
Committed: https://code.google.com/p/dart/source/detail?r=20994

[ahe, 2013-03-21 05:27:46]

Generally, I think you need to move away from ANT.

We already have a build system: it is GYP.  You'll have to do a clean build with
ANT as its dependency tracking is completely broken.  For this reason alone, ANT
is a very poor choice.

[ricow1, 2013-03-21 07:09:27]

The renaming lgtm

I do agree with Peter about ANT though, what is it that we are missing using the
(very) simple javac based approach?

[Brian Wilkerson, 2013-03-21 22:18:05]

The name change is fine, but I can't speak to the rest.

[devoncarew, 2013-03-22 23:12:01]

Thanks for the reviews. It sounds like we're good with the rename in general,
good with the changes to support the rename in the testing code, and somewhat
hesitant about the use of ant.

It was easier for me to use ant to do some of the jar manipulation tasks, like
combining several jar files into one. I could write that in python as well, but
those tasks are built into ant and it saved me time to use them.

My sense is that the java version of the new analyzer will have a lifetime of 6
months, plus or minus a few. After that we'll switch over to using the dart
based analyzer. So, this ant based build of the analyzer will only exist for a
while. I'm open to re-using and extending the compile_analyzer.py script, but
would much prefer to just land the ant work since that's a sunk cost for me.

[devoncarew, 2013-04-05 16:43:41]

I've updated this CL to not use ant so I can make progress on getting the new
analyzer into the SDK. I believe the rest of the CL has been sufficiently
reviewed.

[ahe, 2013-04-05 16:45:14]

lgtm

[devoncarew, 2013-04-05 19:33:31]

Committed patchset #3 manually as r20994 (presubmit successful).