c# Public Nested Classes or Better Option?

Question

I have a control circuit which has multiple settings and may have any number of sensors attached to it (each with it\'s own set of settings). These sensors may only be used

Answer 1

I don't have too much problem with public nested classes (I'm not a fan of dogmatic rules, in general) but have you considered putting all of these types in their own namespace instead? That's the more common way of grouping classes together.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I would very rarely use public nested classes, and I probably wouldn't use them here, but I wouldn't completely balk at them either. There are plenty of examples of public nested types in the framework (e.g. List<T>.Enumerator) - no doubt in each case the designers considered the "smell" of using a nested class, and considered it to be less of a smell than promoting the type to be a top-level one, or creating a new namespace for the types involved.

Answer 2

While I feel Eric's answer is correct, it is important to realize it doesn't really fully address what your situation is.

Your case sounds very similar to one I frequently find myself in where you have a class which is really implementation details of another class, however, some details or functionality of that sub-component naturally lend themselves towards being exposed directly for some minor aspects that are not governed by the parent.

In these cases, what you can do is use interfaces. The nested classes need not be public as they really are internal details of the class they are nested within, but a subset of functionality (an interface) needs to be made publicly available and can be implemented by the class.

This allows for construction of the internal structures to be controlled by the class they are nested within while still allowing direct access to the type from a namespace for external references. (The caller will use SomeNamespace.IChildApi as the name rather than SomeNamespace.NestingClass.NestedClass.SecondNestedClass.ThirdNestedClass, etc.)

Answer 3

From your comment to Eric's answer:

These sensors can ONLY be used with a specific circuit

This kind of relationship is commonly known as a dependency. The Sensor constructor should take a ControlCircuit as a parameter. Nested classes do not convey this relationship.

and you can't get/set any sensor settings without going through the controller circuit;

I think that means that all Sensor properties will delegate to (call) or somehow inform (fire an event on) the ControlCircuit when they're used. Or, you'd have some kind of internal interface to the sensor that only the control circuit uses, making Sensor an opaque class to the outside world. If that's the case, Sensor is just an implementation detail and could be nested private or internal (there's also no need to "save" a sensor instance if you can't do anything with it).

Also, I don't even want to expose a Sensor constructor (the controller will have a method for this)

The fact that the Sensor constructor now takes a control circuit is enough of a hint as to what depends on what that you could leave the constructor public. You can also make it internal.

A general comment that I have is that this design is very coupled. Maybe if you had some interfaces between control circuit, sensor and settings, it would be easier to understand each component independently, and the design would be more testable. I always find beneficial to make the roles that each component plays explicit. That is, if they're not just implementation details.

Answer 4

I generally disagree with Eric on this.

The thing I usually consider is: how often should the end user use the type name ControlCircuitLib.Sensor. If it's "almost never, but the type needs to be public so that doing something is possible", then go for inner types. For anything else, use a separate type.

For example,

public class Frobber {
    public readonly FrobType Standard = ...;
    public readonly FrobType Advanced = ...;

    public void Frob(FrobType type) { ... }

    public class FrobType { ... }
}

In this example, the FrobType only acts as an opaque 'thing'. Only Frobber needs to know what it actually is, although it needs to be possible to pass it around outside that class. However, this sort of example is quite rare; more often than not, you should prefer to avoid nested public classes.

One of the most important things when designing a library is to keep it simple. So use whichever way makes the library and the using code simpler.

Answer 5

The contents of a class should be the implementation details of that class. Are the nested classes implementation details of the outer class, or are you merely using the outer class as a convenient name scoping and discovery mechanism?

If the former, then you shouldn't be making the private implementation details publically available. Make them private if they are implementation details of the class.

If the latter, then you should be using namespaces, not outer classes, as your scoping and discovery mechanism.

Either way, public nested classes are a bad code smell. I'd want to have a very good reason to expose a nested class.

Answer 6

I would say the better option is moving those nested classes out of the class they're in and have them stand on their own. Unless I'm missing something you appear only to have them in the main class in order for some sort of scoping concept, but really, that's what namespaces are for.