Esam-Bustaty
commented
10 years ago I have to say that this is an important point, now it's useless to add using SimpleJson; in the top of the file, and it's ugly to write SimpleJson.SimpleJson.SerializeObject().
I think also that the class name is redundant, SimpleJson is the name of the library, so giving this name to the namespace is a good idea, but the class SimpleJson should be named something that reflects what it actually does, it's responsible for serialization and deserialization, so it can be named Serialization or JsonSerialization, it's also acts as the main class for interaction, so it can be JsonCore or just Core, Serialization itself is considered mapping of objects to strings and vice-versa, so it can be called JsonMapper.
I know that the names I suggested ain't great, but let's be open to suggestions and see if someone come up with a descent name, and please let me know if renaming the class is refused for any reason so we can seek other solutions.
prabirshrestha
Hello,
Thank you for a really great project. One minor issue that I have is that in this project, there is a static class named
SimpleJsonwhich resides in a namespace which is also calledSimpleJson.Please consider changing the name of that class or the namespace as this is considered a major design faux-pas. Eric Lippert - one of the principle developers on the C# compiler team, has written a 4 part series, solely to address this topic.