Modules merging support in ClassAnalyzer

[Alan Bateman]

Mark Reinhold wrote:
> :
> I think it would be cleaner, and simpler, not to introduce a two-level
> naming scheme and a distinct concept of "group" module.  Instead just
> have modules with a single flat namespace and the ability to include one
> module into another.  The analyzer would only generate output files for
> "top level" modules, i.e., those that are not included in any other
> module.
>
> This would allow the fine-grained modules we've been using for analysis
> to be defined independently of the coarser-grained modules we'll use when
> we actually modularize the build.  Ideally such definitions could be kept
> in two separate files in order to allow easy experimentation.
>
> In concrete terms:
>
>   module jdbc-base
>   include java.sql.*
>
>   module jdbc-enterprise
>   include javax.sql.XA* javax.sql.rowset.**
>
>   module jdbc
>   include jdbc-base jdbc-enterprise
>
> This would generate just jdbc.{classlist,dependencies,summary}.
>   
Should we be using a naming convention to make this easier? I note, for 
example, that we currently have "rmi" and "rmi-activation" for analysis 
purposes and maybe the fine-grain "rmi" should be something like 
"rmi-base" to avoid a conflict with a coarser-grain "rmi" module. "jndi" 
is another example, and maybe this should be "jndi-api" or "jndi-framework".

-Alan.