Placing custom code in a System namespace

Question

Are there any best-practices that state custom code shouldn\'t be placed in a System namespace? Should System and its children be reserved for Micr

Answer 1

I disagree with everyone.

I think that in a limited subset of cases (mostly with extension methods) it is perfectly reasonable to place code in a system namespace.

Here is my side of the argument from an email thread we had debating Extension methods in the System namespace over at EPS:

---

Ok, so here's my side of the argument:

1. I really like to minimize code. That includes usings.

2. Yes, ReSharper picks up extension methods and adds the usings for you but some people don't have ReSharper, and besides, I prefer Coderush which as of yet does not actually (as far as I know) pick up extension namespaces.

3. There are at least two different types of extension methods; ones that are helper methods for our application - including domain and application-specific helpers, and ones that encapsulate features and syntax that we believe the language should have had to begin with.

A good example of the latter is the ability to do "a {0} {1}".Format("b", "c") or someListOfStrings.Join(", ") rather than having to do String.Join(someStringList.ToArray(), ", "). Other more debatable examples are IEnumerable<T>.ForEach and the IsNull() extension to take the place of the clumsy object.ReferenceEquals(null, someVar) syntax.

My argument is, that there is every reason to place this latter classification - your team broadly agrees should be in the language but aren't - in the appropriate namespace (System, System.IO, System.Linq, etc.). We want those functions to be available everywhere, just like we prefer the foreach and yield keywords to always be visible. If it is application-specific however it should go in its own namespace. 90% of the time application-specific helper extensions should likely not be extensions and not even be static. I exclude from this statement using extension methods to provide aliases for function names.

You can get in some trouble with this of course when calling into assemblies that contain system-wide extensions. Suppose that I was referencing the assembly containing my void IEnumerable<T>.ForEach method and wanted to create my own ruby-like R IEnumerable<T, R>.ForEach (which is actually just a Select, but nevermind that). This would be a problem! What I like to do to mitigate the issue is to define my extension classes as being internal so that they can be used only on my project. This solves the problem nicely.

Answer 2

It's not a good idea because it defeats one of the primary benefits of namespaces: preventing name clashes. What if a newer version of the framework introduced an identically named type in that namespace?

This is particularly bad for System namespaces since they are imported in many other pieces of code with using directives and introducing custom types in those namespaces pollutes the naming scope of other source files with unexpected identifiers.

To categorize your custom interop related types, you can create a new namespace like MyProduct.InteropServices.

Answer 3

If you place a new class in System.InteropServices, every file that has a using System.InteropServices; clause is forced to have your class in scope, which may confuse the programmer. Since the programmer cannot defend oneself against this, I'd consider this bad practise.