In the code, does it look like
a reflexive call that says super.f() is perfectly clear
code looks like this
reflexive call that said A.f() would be the way to go.
[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Scott
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
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
On 2/28/08, uml
am wondering how to represent the following situation:
A has a protected method f().
Class B overrides method f(), and the
implementation of B.f() makes a call to A.f() (using
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()"