Redefined Property vs Inherited Features

[Uffe]

Hi all,


Let's say I create two classes, both with some attributes, and a Generalization between them. In the more specific class, I can specify that an attribute is a "redefined property", and select an attribute from the more general class that the more specific attribute redefines.

If I then open the Feature and Compartment Visibility dialog for the more specific class and select Inherited Features -- Show Attributes, I would expect the property I have redefined not to show up. It's been redefined, after all. But it does show up.

Am I misunderstanding the "redefine property" feature?


/Uffe

[qwerty]

I'd say no. The redefined attribute replaces the inherited one. The latter is only visible by indirecting to the super class. So you should report that as defect.

q.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

I'd say no. The redefined attribute replaces the inherited one. The latter is only visible by indirecting to the super class. So you should report that as defect.

q.

If you've ever read Object Oriented Software Construction, you'll see there's a LOT of missing functionality in the inheritance mechanism.  Some of it can be from UML itself, and some due to the implementation mechanism used by Sparx.

Over the years, I've come to the conclusion that the inheritance mechanism should be attached to the relationship and not the end point.  But that isn't going to change before Armageddon.

Paolo

[Glassboy]

Over the years, I've come to the conclusion that the inheritance mechanism should be attached to the relationship and not the end point.  But that isn't going to change before Armageddon.

The next Armageddon in the 20-23th October in Auckland.  I suggest it will take longer than that.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Over the years, I've come to the conclusion that the inheritance mechanism should be attached to the relationship and not the end point.  But that isn't going to change before Armageddon.

The next Armageddon in the 20-23th October in Auckland.  I suggest it will take longer than that.

I implied the semi-open interval:  [Not before Armageddon..After Armageddon)  My statement is, therefore, unaltered! 

Paolo (It may be Friday in Auckland, by now)

[Glassboy]

Paolo (It may be Friday in Auckland, by now)

I'm not even sure it's the same reality in Auckland :-)