In the code, does it look like this?
 
super.f();
 
If so, a reflexive call that says super.f() is perfectly clear to me.
 
If the code looks like this
 
A.f();
 
Then a reflexive call that said A.f() would be the way to go. 
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: uml-bounces@lists.ca.ibm.com [mailto:uml-bounces@lists.ca.ibm.com] On Behalf Of Scott Fleming
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 7:21 AM
To: uml@lists.ca.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [uml] Sequence diagram: representing call to method in base class

Oliver,
I feel your pain. This gets ugly when the client of the object only knows about class A and you want to show polymorphism as well as the call to super.f().
This is sort of a weakness with Sequence Diagrams. If you modeling tool lets you, you could have two column(object)s with the same object name but different class names, and stereotype a dependency between them to show that they are the same object. I have always been frustrated with this aspect of sequence diagrams.
Scott Fleming

 
On 2/28/08, uml <disadmin@us.ibm.com> wrote:
Hi,



I am wondering how to represent the following situation:



Class A has a protected method f().

Class B overrides method f(), and the implementation of B.f() makes a call to A.f() (using super.f())



Would it be correct to represent it as an arrow pointing back to the same column (object), but with

the method name "super.f()" or "A.f()" ?



Thanks,



Olivier

_______________________________________________
uml mailing list
uml@lists.ca.ibm.com
Unsubscribe:uml-leave@lists.ca.ibm.com




--
Scott Fleming
l