Book a Demo

Author Topic: Association/aggregation inheritance  (Read 5988 times)

Mr. Janis Alksnis

  • EA Novice
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Association/aggregation inheritance
« on: May 10, 2005, 12:08:19 am »
Will associations/aggregations be inherited from superclass to subclass?

alexander

  • EA Novice
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Association/aggregation inheritance
« Reply #1 on: May 11, 2005, 05:55:47 am »
If the parent class has the agregation node or the multiple cardinality association, yes.

Paolo F Cantoni

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 8626
  • Karma: +259/-129
  • Inconsistently correct systems DON'T EXIST!
    • View Profile
Re: Association/aggregation inheritance
« Reply #2 on: May 11, 2005, 06:05:31 am »
Quote
If the parent class has the agregation node or the multiple cardinality association, yes.


Sorry Alexander, I'm not clear what you are saying here... Can you be more explicit?

Paolo
Inconsistently correct systems DON'T EXIST!
... Therefore, aim for consistency; in the expectation of achieving correctness....
-Semantica-
Helsinki Principle Rules!

SF_lt

  • EA User
  • **
  • Posts: 216
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • The Truth Is Out There
    • View Profile
Re: Association/aggregation inheritance
« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2005, 11:17:17 am »
short answer - yes, will inherit
registertm everything to SparX

alexander

  • EA Novice
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Association/aggregation inheritance
« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2005, 03:01:47 pm »
What i meant was the association will be inherited by a child whose parent has the strong part of the relationship. For example, if the agregation is made by a class called 'bill' which has many 'detail line' associated, the relationship will be inherited by a child of 'bill' (it will appear as an attribute).
My point was that in the other side of the relationship it would not be visible how the relationship was inherited, but you could also see it when a 'bill' has a child of a 'detail bill' in the relationship, so it would also be correct.

After some thinking i agree with wolf: in short terms yes. No point in over analizing a simple question, sory.