Am 15.06.2006 um 16:06 schrieb Colin Putney:

>> 1.  Does Monticello offer some help with this situation?
>> 2a.  Do I go ahead and just directly modify the existing class method
>> to add my two lines and mark it as a Monticello class extension, or
>> 2b.  Do I do the right thing and put in all the extra subclasses to
>> properly overload the whole string of dependent class references?
>> 3.  How do I deal with 2a when the owner of the existing class
>> modifies that method some other way?
>
> Hi David,
>
> If the existing class is part of a Monticello package, the best way  
> to deal with it is to just modify the method and save the package.  
> You've effectively created your own branch of that package, and as  
> new versions are released up stream, you just merge them into your  
> branch.

This is the best way. Even better is that you refactor the package in  
a way to allow your code to hook in without code changes, and submit  
this version to the package maintainer.

> Another option would be to override the existing method. Modify it  
> and move it into a category called *mypackage-overrides. This will  
> let Monticello know that your package overrides the existing  
> method, without "stealing" it from the other package. This mostly  
> works, but you can run into problems with overrides because  
> PackageInfo is not a real packaging system, and there are corner  
> cases that can cause methods to be lost.

it's *mypackage-override, without a trailing "s". But don't use it if  
you don't have to.

- Bert -