Using "Base" in a Class Name

Question

Is it acceptable to use the word 'Base' in a class name which is a the bottom of the inheritance tree?

I have always found this a bit of a cop-out, just wondering if anyone agrees with me.

For example, if I am refactoring certain elements from MyClassA and MyClassB into a common base class, I'd be tempted to create a MyBaseClass from which the two inherit.

But what happens if I ever need to refactor MyBaseClass? MyBaseBaseClass? Now that's just silly.

I know that Rocky Lhotka doesn't mind with his CSLA framework, but I'm always uneasy about 'definites' in programming.

Thoughts?

Let me clarify why I'm even worrying about this.

I have two namespaces - MySpecificNamespace and MyCommonNamespace. MyNamespace uses MyCommonNamespace, as you might expect.

Now, I like to make maximum use of Namespaces wherever possible to describe the context of the problem, and avoid adding the context to the class name. So, for example, consider that I have a class in MyNamespace which descends from one in MyCommonNamespace.

Option A

I could call this

MySpecificClass: MyClass { } 

But then I'm adding 'Specific' (the context) to the name - which is redundant as it's already in MySpecificNamespace.

Option B

MyClass: MyCommonNamespace.MyClass { } 

You can see how we could get confused here, right?

Option C

The one I think is fishy:

MyClass: MyBaseClass { } 

Answer 1

I tend to add a Base suffix to the name of the base class only if it exists from technical perspective (to share some code), and doesn't really constitute any usable class on its own (so all of these classes are abstract). These are quite rare cases though, and should be avoided just as Helper classes.

Answer 2

"All your BaseClass are belong to us."

I side with a definitive no, with a single exception. If you are writing an app to manage military installations or baseball stadiums, go for it.