>Erik,
>
>Your approach is a Decorator pattern (according to Gamma and Helms "also known as wrapper" :-)). A direct quote from Gamma and Helms is "Decorators provide a flexible alternative to subclassing for extending functionality."
Thanks for the clarification.
>So I guess, on the semantics, I stand on John's side.
Actually, we probably all stand on the same side as far as far as nomenclature. I know it's not really subclassing- the following quotes are from my original post:
'allows me to effectively 'subclass' any COM object'
'analogous to real subclassing'
Throughout the post (except the title), the word subclass is used only in quotes.
I was just object to calling it a simple or classic wrapper, and was trying to defend against JVP's assertion's that:
'this is nothing new'
'the Access method just complicates the issue- what's the point'
'you can't override behavior'
Again, thanks for helping to clear things up.
Erik Moore
Clientelligence