Does using a C++ namespace increase coupling?

Question

I understand that a C++ library should use a namespace to avoid name collisions, but since I already have to:

1. #include the correct header (or forward declare the classes I intend to use)
2. Use those classes by name

Don't these two parameters infer the same information conveyed by a namespace. Using a namespace now introduces a third parameter - the fully qualified name. If the implementation of the library changes, there are now three potential things I need to change. Is this not, by definition an increase in coupling between the library code and my code?

---

For example, look at Xerces-C: It defines a pure-virtual interface called Parser within the namespace XERCES_CPP_NAMESPACE. I can make use of the Parser interface in my code by including the appropriate header file and then either importing the namespace using namespace XERCES_CPP_NAMESPACE or prefacing declarations/definitions with XERCES_CPP_NAMESPACE::.

As the code evolves, perhaps there is a need to drop Xerces in favour of a different parser. I'm partially "protected" from the change in the library implementation by the pure-virtual interface (even more so if I use a factory to construct my Parser), but as soon as I switch from Xerces to something else, I need to comb through my code and change all my using namespace XERCES_CPP_NAMESPACE and XERCES_CPP_NAMESPACE::Parser code.

---

I ran into this recently when I refactored an existing C++ project to split-out some existing useful functionality into a library:

foo.h

class Useful;  // Forward Declaration

class Foo
{
public:

    Foo(const Useful& u);
    ...snip...

}

foo.cpp

#include "foo.h"
#include "useful.h" // Useful Library

Foo::Foo(const Useful& u)
{
    ... snip ...
}

Largely out of ignorance (and partially out of laziness) at the time, the all of the functionality of useful.lib was placed in the global namespace.

As the contents of useful.lib grew (and more clients started to use the functionality), it was decided to move all the code from useful.lib into its own namespace called "useful".

The client .cpp files were easy to fix, just add a using namespace useful;

foo.cpp

#include "foo.h"
#include "useful.h" // Useful Library

using namespace useful;

Foo::Foo(const Useful& u)
{
    ... snip ...
}

But the .h files were really labour intensive. Instead of polluting the global namespace by putting using namespace useful; in the header files, I wrapped the existing forward declarations in the namespace:

foo.h

namespace useful {
    class Useful;  // Forward Declaration
}

class Foo
{
public:

    Foo(const useful::Useful& u);
    ...snip...
}

There were dozens (and dozens) of files and this ended up being a major pain! It should not have been that difficult. Clearly I did something wrong with either the design and/or implementation.

Although I know that library code should be in its own namespace, would it have been advantageous for the library code to remain in the global namespace, and instead try to manage the #includes?

Answer 1

It sounds to me like your problem is due primarily to how you're (ab)using namespaces, not due to the namespaces themselves.

1. It sounds like you're throwing a lot of minimally related "stuff" into one namespace, mostly (when you get down to it) because they happen to have been developed by the same person. At least IMO, a namespace should reflect logical organization of the code, not just the accident that a bunch of utilities happened to be written by the same person.

2. A namespace name should usually be fairly long and descriptive to prevent any more than the most remote possibility of a collision. For example, I usually include my name, date written, and a short description of the functionality of the namespace.

3. Most client code doesn't need to (and often shouldn't) use the real name of the namespace directly. Instead, it should define a namespace alias, and only the alias name should be used in most code.

Putting points two and three together, we can end up with code something like this:

#include "jdate.h"

namespace dt = Jerry_Coffin_Julian_Date_Dec_21_1999;

int main() {

    dt::Date date;

    std::cout << "Please enter a date: " << std::flush;
    std::cin>>date;

    dt::Julian jdate(date);
    std::cout   << date << " is " 
                << jdate << " days after " 
                << dt::Julian::base_date()
                << std::endl;
    return 0;
}

This removes (or at least drastically reduces) coupling between the client code and a particular implementation of the date/time classes. For example, if I wanted to re-implement the same date/time classes, I could put them in a different namespace, and switch between one and the other just by changing the alias and re-compiling.

In fact, I've used this at times as a kind of compile-time polymorphism mechanism. For one example, I've written a couple versions of a small "display" class, one that displays output in a Windows list-box, and another that displays output via iostreams. The code then uses an alias something like:

#ifdef WINDOWED
namespace display = Windowed_Display
#else
namespace display = Console_Display
#endif

The rest of the code just uses display::whatever, so as long as both namespaces implement the entire interface, I can use either one, without changing the rest of the code at all, and without any runtime overhead from using a pointer/reference to a base class with virtual functions for the implementations.

Answer 2

The namespace has nothing to do with coupling. The same coupling exists whether you call it useful::UsefulClass or just UsefulClass. Now the fact that you needed to do all that work refactoring only tells you to what extent your code does depend on your library.

To ease the forwarding you could have written a forward header (there are a couple in the STL, you can surely find it in libraries) like usefulfwd.h that only forward defined the library interface (or implementing classes or whatever you need). But this has nothing to do with coupling.

Still, coupling and namespaces are just unrelated. A rose would smell as sweet by any other name, and your classes are as coupled in any other namespace.

Answer 3

(a) interfaces/classes/functions from the library

Not any more than you already have. Using namespace-ed library components helps you from namespace pollution.

(b) implementation details inferred by the namespace?

Why? All you should be including is a header useful.h. The implementation should be hidden (and reside in the useful.cpp and probably in a dynamic library form).

You can selectively include only those classes that you need from useful.h by having using useful::Useful declarations.