Class.Class VS Namespace.Class的顶级通用类库？ [英] Class.Class vs Namespace.Class for top level general use class libraries?

问题描述

哪一个更可接受的（最佳实践）：

Which one is more acceptable (best-practice)?:

namespace NP
   public static class IO
   public static class Xml
   ...
   // extension methods

using NP;

IO.GetAvailableResources ();

VS

public static class NP
   public static class IO
   public static class Xml
   ...
   // extension methods

NP.IO.GetAvailableResources ();

也为 2 中，code尺寸是通过让部分类管理，以便每个嵌套类可以是一个单独的文件，相同的扩展方法（除没有嵌套类为他们）

Also for #2, the code size is managed by having partial classes so each nested class can be in a separate file, same for extension methods (except that there is no nested class for them)

我preFER 2 ，为一对夫妇的原因，喜欢的是可以使用已经普遍使用，如 IO类型名称，我不希望更换或碰撞。

I prefer #2, for a couple of reasons like being able to use type names that are already commonly used, like IO, that I don't want to replace or collide.

哪一个你preFER？任何优点和缺点每个？什么是这种情况的最佳做法是什么？

Which one do you prefer? Any pros and cons for each? What's the best practice for this case?

编辑：也会有两者之间的性能差异

Also would there be a performance difference between the two?

推荐答案

我想说的＃1。因为当你捆绑了大量的类到一个静态类，你做同样的事情作为一个命名空间是换货的。这就是为什么我会说这是最好的让命名空间为你做的。

I would say #1. Because when you bundle up lots of classes into one static class you do the same thing as a namespace is ment for. Which is why I would say it is best to let namespaces do that for you.

在这种情况下，你也可以摆脱其用在你想加入的情况下写的NP眼前的一切的。我觉得就应该把你的巢命名空间，使他们不会相撞我们使用更多的描述比IO命名空间的名称。

In that case you can also get rid of having to write "NP" in front of everything by adding using in case you want. I think you should either nest your namespaces so that they wont collide our use more describing namespace names than IO.

大多数时候，最好的做法是微软做的，我从来没有见过他们做的＃2

Most often the best practice is what Microsoft do and I have never seen them do #2

这篇关于Class.Class VS Namespace.Class的顶级通用类库？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！