tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3070727340982558956.post3217532302389407147..comments2023-03-21T14:31:53.527+00:00Comments on Steal Focus: How not to namespace (Part 1)Callum Hibberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15087498670872017678noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3070727340982558956.post-298122040431004032010-11-22T21:52:40.352+00:002010-11-22T21:52:40.352+00:00I'm with you on this one Callum, 'Common&#...I'm with you on this one Callum, 'Common' suffix is for losers.<br /><br />Common often exists in sub-namespaces too. I have also seen the nameing of "Shared" which is the same as Common within a sub-namespace.<br /><br />I think this is a legacy hangover from native developers i.e. C/C++ with includes. or Copy books if you code in COBOL.<br /><br />SimonSimon Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08526568682625258690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3070727340982558956.post-59564146590372755902010-10-31T22:27:42.326+00:002010-10-31T22:27:42.326+00:00I should add that when I say there is no "Com...I should add that when I say there is no "Common" namespace in the .NET Framework Base Class Libraries I mean there is no namespace with the suffix ".Common".<br /><br />There is a common namespace in the .NET Framework Base Class Libraries, its called "System". See how there is no "System.Common" or "System.Something.Common" namespaces?Callum Hibberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15087498670872017678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3070727340982558956.post-45216026161051606082010-10-31T21:46:53.703+00:002010-10-31T21:46:53.703+00:00Agreed, common namespaces are fine but my point is...Agreed, common namespaces are fine but my point is that "common" namespaces should not have a ".Common" suffix.<br /><br />The "common" namespace for "Parent.Child1" and "Parent.Child2" is "Parent" not "Parent.Common".<br /><br />CallumCallum Hibberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15087498670872017678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3070727340982558956.post-6031718373824894272010-10-28T23:20:54.939+01:002010-10-28T23:20:54.939+01:00Hi Callum
If i can chuck an opinion in here, i th...Hi Callum<br /><br />If i can chuck an opinion in here, i think the root cause for this is when people dont have an opportunity to model their domain and components well enough before starting development.<br /><br />I think people then end up with a situation where they have a class which doesnt logically fit into a component because its a common utility but it might have a data access requirement etc and then they start to worry about the referencing model<br /><br />i think one of the best advancements in this area is vS 2010 and the ability to constrain the architecture through the diagrams which can be compiled with the code so a well designed structure like you always do cant then be ruined by a lazy developer hacking a class in the easiest place it sort of fitsUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14456476951483012292noreply@blogger.com