它是不好的做法，有一个静态类的状态？ [英] Is it bad practice to have state in a static class?

问题描述

我愿做这样的事情：

public class Foo {
    // Probably really a Guid, but I'm using a string here for simplicity's sake.
    string Id { get; set; }

    int Data { get; set; }

    public Foo (int data) {
        ...
    }

    ...
}

public static class FooManager {
    Dictionary<string, Foo> foos = new Dictionary<string, Foo> ();

    public static Foo Get (string id) {
        return foos [id];
    }

    public static Foo Add (int data) {
        Foo foo = new Foo (data);
        foos.Add (foo.Id, foo);

        return foo;
    }

    public static bool Remove (string id) {
        return foos.Remove (id);
    }

    ...

    // Other members, perhaps events for when Foos are added or removed, etc.
}

这将让我管理富的全球系列S从任何地方。不过，我已经告诉静态类应该始终是无状态的 - 你不应该使用它们来存储全局数据。一般全局数据似乎在被皱起了眉头。 ？如果我不应该使用一个静态类，什么是解决这个问题的正确方法。

This would allow me to manage the global collection of Foos from anywhere. However, I've been told that static classes should always be stateless--you shouldn't use them to store global data. Global data in general seems to be frowned upon. If I shouldn't use a static class, what is the right way to approach this problem?

请注意：我没有找到一个的similar问题，但给出的答复并不在我的情况真的很适用。

Note: I did find a similar question, but the answer given doesn't really apply in my case.

推荐答案

谁留静态类应该是无状态的？静态的办法的说明

Who stays that static classes should be stateless? Static means stated.

只要知道类是如何静态的CLR工作：

Just know how static classes work in the CLR:

• 您无法控制时，静态构造函数的调用时间。


• 静态类为每个调用程序一个独立的国家。

另外要注意的并发问题。

Also be aware of concurrency issues.

作为一个侧面说明，它使我惊奇人们经常说不要用X.这就像有人走进你的工具室，指着半打工具和说：这些工具是不好的做法。它没有意义。

As a side note, it amazes me how often people say "Don't use X." It would be like someone walking into your toolshed and pointing to half a dozen tools and saying, "Those tools are bad practice." It doesn't make sense.

这篇关于它是不好的做法，有一个静态类的状态？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！