A specialisation should be able to override attributes, no? Different initial values
for overridden attributes? [muffled mumbling of hibernate persistence and a discriminator ;-)] It looks like it would be simple for andromda to handle this construct correctly (and I'm quite impressed that the solution would be so simple :-)). I guess what I'm asking is this: Would correcting this behaviour here break anything? Sorry, I meant that if we modified the handleGetAttributes(boolean) to exclude overridden attributes, we could call that instead of the plain superClass.getAttributes(). [and yes, I have the tagged-value implementation of hibernate discriminator inheritance, but I've also learned that there is a "right" way to express this in the model -- my original inclination to define an overridden attribute in the specialization seems to be correct based on my reading of the UML specs (in fact, there is an example of just this)...] _________________________________________________________ Reply to the post : http://galaxy.andromda.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2954#2954 Posting to http://forum.andromda.org/ is preferred over posting to the mailing list! ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click _______________________________________________ Andromda-user mailing list Andromda-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/andromda-user
