Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!husc6!cmcl2!ccnysci!alexis
From: alexis@ccnysci.UUCP (Alexis Rosen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Legal Tail Patches
Message-ID: <1288@ccnysci.UUCP>
Date: 19 Feb 89 11:43:40 GMT
References: <1285@ccnysci.UUCP> <6562@hoptoad.uucp>
Reply-To: alexis@ccnysci.UUCP (Alexis Rosen)
Organization: City College of New York
Lines: 20


Tim Maroney remarks that my tail patch method is not terribly useful
because you usually want the patch to always be in place. He uses the
example of suitcase (actually, that was the first thing I tought of too).

To be honest, this reaction doesn't surprise me much, because I think he's
right in most cases. There is one exception, though, which is the case for
which I developed this technique: parasitic (or symbiotic?) code modules,
like XCMDs. In this case, you can't replace a trap for the application by
just calling a different routine because you didn't write the app in the
first place. This technique overcomes that and lets you monitor or alter
a closed application in many ways (in my case, FoxBase, which is remarkably
tolerant about parasites...)

Anyway, it has proven a useful, if somewhat off-the-wall technique. While
I'm comfortable with the compatibility, I still wonder if there's a better
(read: faster to code) way...

Alexis Rosen
alexis@ccnysci.uucp