static class or class

[DBC User]

Hi All,

Would like to know which is the best approach. I have a class which has
only constants variables (private) and a public static method, which
returns a string variable.

I would like to know can I use it as static method, change this to a
class and construct it and use it every time. What is the best approach
and why one is better than other one? Any pointers would be great.

Thanks.

[Mehdi]

On 6 Jun 2006 12:08:25 -0700, DBC User wrote:

Would like to know which is the best approach. I have a class which has
only constants variables (private) and a public static method, which
returns a string variable.

I would like to know can I use it as static method, change this to a
class and construct it and use it every time. What is the best approach
and why one is better than other one? Any pointers would be great.

I don't really understand what you're after. If your class only has
constant fields and a static method, then make its constructor private so
that it can not be instanciated (which wouldn't serve any purpose since it
doesn't have any member fields or methods) and there you go.

[Michael Nemtsev]

Hello DBC,

In general - use class if you are goint to use it from the different classes.
in that case you have only one instance and refer to it from the different
places

DU> Would like to know which is the best approach. I have a class which
DU> has only constants variables (private) and a public static method,
DU> which returns a string variable.
DU>
DU> I would like to know can I use it as static method, change this to a
DU> class and construct it and use it every time. What is the best
DU> approach and why one is better than other one? Any pointers would be
DU> great.
DU>
DU> Thanks.
DU>
---
WBR,
Michael Nemtsev :: blog: http://spaces.msn.com/laflour

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not
cease to be insipid." (c) Friedrich Nietzsche

[Bjorn Abelli]

"DBC User" wrote...

Would like to know which is the best approach. I have a class which has
only constants variables (private) and a public static method, which
returns a string variable.

I would like to know can I use it as static method, change this to a
class and construct it and use it every time. What is the best approach
and why one is better than other one? Any pointers would be great.

Well, I guess you really ask the question you have in the subject: "static
class or class".

It's really no difference to use a static class or just a non-instatiable
class with a private constructor.

The benefits of making a class static, is to prevent to mistakingly adding
instance members to it if it's supposed to be just a holder for static
things. Then it will raise errors at compile time.

Otherwise, there's no difference.

/// Bjorn A

[DBC User]

Bjorn,

Thanks so there will be no run time memory management issues I need to
worry about??

Thanks for all your answers.
Bjorn Abelli wrote:

"DBC User" wrote...

Would like to know which is the best approach. I have a class which has
only constants variables (private) and a public static method, which
returns a string variable.

I would like to know can I use it as static method, change this to a
class and construct it and use it every time. What is the best approach
and why one is better than other one? Any pointers would be great.

Well, I guess you really ask the question you have in the subject: "static
class or class".

It's really no difference to use a static class or just a non-instatiable
class with a private constructor.

The benefits of making a class static, is to prevent to mistakingly adding
instance members to it if it's supposed to be just a holder for static
things. Then it will raise errors at compile time.

Otherwise, there's no difference.

/// Bjorn A

[james.curran]

Now, if I follow this correctly, you are asking which is better:

MyClassA.Func();

or

MyClassB obj = new MyClassB();
obj.Func();

In the second case, there is a trivial amount of overhead : creating a
MyClassB object which is empty except for a reference to MyClassB's
Type object, and then passing the "this" reference to the Func method.

DBC User wrote:

Thanks so there will be no run time memory management issues I need to
worry about??

[Bjorn Abelli]

"DBC User" wrote...

Bjorn,

Thanks so there will be no run time memory management issues
I need to worry about??
Not according to the documentation anyway... ;-)

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/79b3xss3.aspx

"Creating a static class is therefore much the same as creating a class that
contains only static members and a private constructor. A private
constructor prevents the class from being instantiated.

The advantage of using a static class is that the compiler can check to make
sure that no instance members are accidentally added. The compiler will
guarantee that instances of this class cannot be created."
Thanks for all your answers.

You're welcome.

/// Bjorn A

[Bjorn Abelli]

<ja**********@gmail.com> wrote...

Now, if I follow this correctly, you are asking which is better:

MyClassA.Func();

or

MyClassB obj = new MyClassB();
obj.Func();

In the second case, there is a trivial amount of overhead : creating a
MyClassB object which is empty except for a reference to MyClassB's
Type object, and then passing the "this" reference to the Func method.

I think "DBC User" rather wondered about the difference between

class MyClassA
{
static void Func() {}
}

or

static class MyClassA
{
static void Func() {}
}

....which should be no difference at all.

The difference is only at compile time, where the compiler prohibits any
instance members in the second case.

In runtime, there would AFAIK be no difference, as it should produce the
exactly same IL.

// Bjorn A

[DBC User]

Bjorn,

Sorry I wasn't clear enough.

This is what I am trying

public class foo
{
private string fooVar;
public foo()
{
fooVar = "Test";
}
public string GetStringFoo()
{
return fooVar;
}
}

and in my main code I use
foo f = new foo();
string t = f.GetStringFoo();

is it better than the following with respect to the run time

public class foo
{
private const string fooVar="Test";
public static string GetStringFoo()
{
return fooVar;
}
}
and in my main code I use
string t = foo.GetStringFoo();

I am more interested in which is the best approach and what is the
overhead I need to worry about.

Thanks a lot for all the answers again.

Bjorn Abelli wrote:

<ja**********@gmail.com> wrote...

Now, if I follow this correctly, you are asking which is better:

MyClassA.Func();

or

MyClassB obj = new MyClassB();
obj.Func();

In the second case, there is a trivial amount of overhead : creating a
MyClassB object which is empty except for a reference to MyClassB's
Type object, and then passing the "this" reference to the Func method.

I think "DBC User" rather wondered about the difference between

class MyClassA
{
static void Func() {}
}

or

static class MyClassA
{
static void Func() {}
}

...which should be no difference at all.

The difference is only at compile time, where the compiler prohibits any
instance members in the second case.

In runtime, there would AFAIK be no difference, as it should produce the
exactly same IL.

// Bjorn A

[Bjorn Abelli]

"DBC User" wrote...

This is what I am trying

public class foo
{
private string fooVar;
public foo()
{
fooVar = "Test";
}
public string GetStringFoo()
{
return fooVar;
}
}

and in my main code I use
foo f = new foo();
string t = f.GetStringFoo();

is it better than the following with respect to the run time

public class foo
{
private const string fooVar="Test";
public static string GetStringFoo()
{
return fooVar;
}
}
and in my main code I use
string t = foo.GetStringFoo();

I am more interested in which is the best approach
and what is the overhead I need to worry about.
The "best" approach is always relative... ;-)

The second case will gain "some" performance compared to the first case, as
the string as a constant can be inlined at compilation, i.e. it will not
need to be resolved at runtime.
Thanks a lot for all the answers again.

You're welcome, again... ;-)

/// Bjorn A