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

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 <> wrote:

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()" ?



uml mailing list

Scott Fleming