Is it bad practice to have state in a static class?
- by Matthew
I would like to do something like this:
public class Foo {
// Probably really a Guid, but I'm using a string here for simplicity's sake.
string Id { get; set; }
int Data { get; set; }
public Foo (int data) {
...
}
...
}
public static class FooManager {
Dictionary<string, Foo> foos = new Dictionary<string, Foo> ();
public static Foo Get (string id) {
return foos [id];
}
public static Foo Add (int data) {
Foo foo = new Foo (data);
foos.Add (foo.Id, foo);
return foo;
}
public static bool Remove (string id) {
return foos.Remove (id);
}
...
// Other members, perhaps events for when Foos are added or removed, etc.
}
This would allow me to manage the global collection of Foos from anywhere. However, I've been told that static classes should always be stateless--you shouldn't use them to store global data. Global data in general seems to be frowned upon. If I shouldn't use a static class, what is the right way to approach this problem?
Note: I did find a similar question, but the answer given doesn't really apply in my case.
