Return to Question

I pulled the term smurf naming from here (number 21). To save anyone not familiar the trouble, Smurf naming is the act of prefixing a bunch of related classes, variables, etc with a common prefix so you end up with "a SmurfAccountView passes a SmurfAccountDTO to the SmurfAccountController", etc.

The solution I've generally heard to this is to make a smurf namespace and drop the smurf prefixes. This has generally served me well, but I'm running into two problems.

1. I'm working with a library with a Configuration class. It could have been called WartmongerConfiguration but it's in the Wartmonger namespace, so it's just called Configuration. I likewise have a Configuration class which could be called SmurfConfiguration, but it is in the Smurf namespace so that would be redundant. There are places in my code where Smurf.Configuration appears alongside Wartmonger.Configuration and typing out fully qualified names is clunky and makes the code less readable. It would be nicer to deal with a SmurfConfiguration and (if it was my code and not a library) WartmongerConfiguration.

2. I have a class called Service in my Smurf namespace which could have been called SmurfService. Service is a facade on top of a complex Smurf library which runs Smurf jobs. SmurfService seems like a better name because Service without the Smurf prefix is so incredibly generic. I can accept that SmurfService was already a generic, useless name and taking away smurf merely made this more apparent. But it could have been named Runner, Launcher, etc and it would still "feel better" to me as SmurfLauncher because I don't know what a Launcher does, but I know what a SmurfLauncher does. You could argue that what a Smurf.Launcher does should be just as apparent as a Smurf.SmurfLauncher, but I could see `Smurf.Launcher being some kind of class related to setup rather than a class that launches smurfs.

If there is an open and shut way to deal with either of these that would be great. If not, what are some common practices to mitigate their annoyance?

I pulled the term smurf naming from here (number 21). To save anyone not familiar the trouble, Smurf naming is the act of prefixing a bunch of related classes, variables, etc with a common prefix so you end up with "a SmurfAccountView passes a SmurfAccountDTO to the SmurfAccountController", etc.

The solution I've generally heard to this is to make a smurf namespace and drop the smurf prefixes. This has generally served me well, but I'm running into two problems.

1. I'm working with a library with a Configuration class. It could have been called WartmongerConfiguration but it's in the Wartmonger namespace, so it's just called Configuration. I likewise have a Configuration class which could be called SmurfConfiguration, but it is in the Smurf namespace so that would be redundant. There are places in my code where Smurf.Configuration appears alongside Wartmonger.Configuration and typing out fully qualified names is clunky and makes the code less readable. It would be nicer to deal with a SmurfConfiguration and (if it was my code and not a library) WartmongerConfiguration.

2. I have a class called Service in my Smurf namespace which could have been called SmurfService. Service is a facade on top of a complex Smurf library which runs Smurf jobs. SmurfService seems like a better name because Service without the Smurf prefix is so incredibly generic. I can accept that SmurfService was already a generic, useless name and taking away smurf merely made this more apparent. But it could have been named Runner, Launcher, etc and it would still "feel better" to me as SmurfLauncher because I don't know what a Launcher does, but I know what a SmurfLauncher does. You could argue that what a Smurf.Launcher does should be just as apparent as a Smurf.SmurfLauncher, but I could see `Smurf.Launcher being some kind of class related to setup rather than a class that launches smurfs.

If there is an open and shut way to deal with either of these that would be great. If not, what are some common practices to mitigate their annoyance?

I pulled the term smurf naming from here (number 21). To save anyone not familiar the trouble, Smurf naming is the act of prefixing a bunch of related classes, variables, etc with a common prefix so you end up with "a SmurfAccountView passes a SmurfAccountDTO to the SmurfAccountController", etc.

The solution I've generally heard to this is to make a smurf namespace and drop the smurf prefixes. This has generally served me well, but I'm running into two problems.

1. I'm working with a library with a Configuration class. It could have been called WartmongerConfiguration but it's in the Wartmonger namespace, so it's just called Configuration. I likewise have a Configuration class which could be called SmurfConfiguration, but it is in the Smurf namespace so that would be redundant. There are places in my code where Smurf.Configuration appears alongside Wartmonger.Configuration and typing out fully qualified names is clunky and makes the code less readable. It would be nicer to deal with a SmurfConfiguration and (if it was my code and not a library) WartmongerConfiguration.

2. I have a class called Service in my Smurf namespace which could have been called SmurfService. Service is a facade on top of a complex Smurf library which runs Smurf jobs. SmurfService seems like a better name because Service without the Smurf prefix is so incredibly generic. I can accept that SmurfService was already a generic, useless name and taking away smurf merely made this more apparent. But it could have been named Runner, Launcher, etc and it would still "feel better" to me as SmurfLauncher because I don't know what a Launcher does, but I know what a SmurfLauncher does. You could argue that what a Smurf.Launcher does should be just as apparent as a Smurf.SmurfLauncher, but I could see `Smurf.Launcher being some kind of class related to setup rather than a class that launches smurfs.

If there is an open and shut way to deal with either of these that would be great. If not, what are some common practices to mitigate their annoyance?

I pulled the term smurf naming from here (number 21). To save anyone not familiar the trouble, Smurf naming is the act of prefixing a bunch of related classes, variables, etc with a common prefix so you end up with "a SmurfAccountView passes a SmurfAccountDTO to the SmurfAccountController", etc.

The solution I've generally heard to this is to make a smurf namespace and drop the smurf prefixes. This has generally served me well, but I'm running into two problems.

1. I'm working with a library with a Configuration class. It could have been called WartmongerConfiguration but it's in the Wartmonger namespace, so it's just called Configuration. I likewise have a Configuration class which could be called SmurfConfiguration, but it is in the Smurf namespace so that would be redundant. There are places in my code where Smurf.Configuration appears alongside Wartmonger.Configuration and typing out fully qualified names is clunky and makes the code less readable. It would be nicer to deal with a SmurfConfiguration and (if it was my code and not a library) WartmongerConfiguration.

2. I have a class called Service in my Smurf namespace which could have been called SmurfService. Service is a facade on top of a complex Smurf library which runs Smurf jobs. SmurfService seems like a better name because Service without the Smurf prefix is so incredibly generic. I can accept that SmurfService was already a generic, useless name and taking away smurf merely made this more apparent. But it could have been named Runner, Launcher, etc and it would still "feel better" to me as SmurfLauncher because I don't know what a Launcher does, but I know what a SmurfLauncher does. You could argue that what a Smurf.Launcher does should be just as apparent as a Smurf.SmurfLauncher, but I could see `Smurf.Launcher being some kind of class related to setup rather than a class that launches smurfs.

If there is an open and shut way to deal with either of these that would be great. If not, what are some common practices to mitigate their annoyance?

I pulled the term smurf naming from here (number 21). To save anyone not familiar the trouble, Smurf naming is the act of prefixing a bunch of related classes, variables, etc with a commong prefix so you end up with "a SmurfAccountView passes a SmurfAccountDTO to the SmurfAccountController", etc.

The solution I've generally heard to this is to make a smurf namespace and drop the smurf prefixes. This has generally served me well, but I'm running into two problems.

1. I'm working with a library with a Configuration class. It could have been called WartmongerConfiguration but it's in the Wartmonger namespace, so it's just called Configuration. I likewise have a Configuration class which could be called SmurfConfiguration, but it is in the Smurf namespace so that would be redundant. There are places in my code where Smurf.Configuration appears alongside Wartmonger.Configuration and typing out fully qualified names is clunky and makes the code less readable. It would be nicer to deal with a SmurfConfiguration and (if it was my code and not a library) WartmongerConfiguration.

2. I have a class called Service in my Smurf namespace which could have been called SmurfService. Service is a facade on top of a complex Smurf library which runs Smurf jobs. SmurfService seems like a better name because Service without the Smurf prefix is so incredibly generic. I can accept that SmurfService was already a generic, useless name and taking away smurf merely made this more apparent. But it could have been named Runner, Launcher, etc and it would still "feel better" to me as SmurfLauncher because I don't know what a Launcher does, but I know what a SmurfLauncher does. You could argue that what a Smurf.Launcher does should be just as apparent as a Smurf.SmurfLauncher, but I could see Smurf.Launcher being some kind of class related to setup rather than a class that launches smurfs.

If there is an open and shut way to deal with either of these that would be great. If not, what are some common practices to mitigate their annoyance?

I pulled the term smurf naming from here (number 21). To save anyone not familiar the trouble, Smurf naming is the act of prefixing a bunch of related classes, variables, etc with a common prefix so you end up with "a SmurfAccountView passes a SmurfAccountDTO to the SmurfAccountController", etc.

The solution I've generally heard to this is to make a smurf namespace and drop the smurf prefixes. This has generally served me well, but I'm running into two problems.

1. I'm working with a library with a Configuration class. It could have been called WartmongerConfiguration but it's in the Wartmonger namespace, so it's just called Configuration. I likewise have a Configuration class which could be called SmurfConfiguration, but it is in the Smurf namespace so that would be redundant. There are places in my code where Smurf.Configuration appears alongside Wartmonger.Configuration and typing out fully qualified names is clunky and makes the code less readable. It would be nicer to deal with a SmurfConfiguration and (if it was my code and not a library) WartmongerConfiguration.

2. I have a class called Service in my Smurf namespace which could have been called SmurfService. Service is a facade on top of a complex Smurf library which runs Smurf jobs. SmurfService seems like a better name because Service without the Smurf prefix is so incredibly generic. I can accept that SmurfService was already a generic, useless name and taking away smurf merely made this more apparent. But it could have been named Runner, Launcher, etc and it would still "feel better" to me as SmurfLauncher because I don't know what a Launcher does, but I know what a SmurfLauncher does. You could argue that what a Smurf.Launcher does should be just as apparent as a Smurf.SmurfLauncher, but I could see `Smurf.Launcher being some kind of class related to setup rather than a class that launches smurfs.

If there is an open and shut way to deal with either of these that would be great. If not, what are some common practices to mitigate their annoyance?