Question

Consider the following Win32 API struct:

typedef struct _SECURITY_ATTRIBUTES {
  DWORD  nLength;
  LPVOID lpSecurityDescriptor;
  BOOL   bInheritHandle;
} SECURITY_ATTRIBUTES, *PSECURITY_ATTRIBUTES, *LPSECURITY_ATTRIBUTES;

When porting this object to C#, should I follow the name naming conventions used here, like so:

public struct _SECURITY_ATTRIBUTES
{
    public int nLength;
    public unsafe byte* lpSecurityDescriptor;
    public int bInheritHandle;
}

or can I go all out, and write my struct in a C# style, like so:

public struct SecurityAttributes
{
    private int length;
    private unsafe byte* securityDescriptor;
    private int bInheritHandle;

    public Int32 Length
    {
        get { return this.length; }
        set { this.length = value; }
    }

    public Byte* SecurityDescriptor
    {
        get { return this.seurityDescriptor; }
        set { this.securityDescriptor = value; }
    }

    public Int32 InheritHandle
    {
        get { return this.bInheritHandle; }
        set { this.bInheritHandle = value; }
    }

    public SecurityAttributes(int length, byte* securityDescriptor, int inheritHandle)
    {
        this.length = length;
        this.securityDescriptor = securityDescriptor;
        this.inheritHandle = inheritHandle;
    }
}

Whilst the second approach seems much more elegant, I would like to know if it is advisable to invoke native functionality using a struct written in that fashion, or if there are any other pitfalls when porting structs from C/C++.

Answer 1

I think this should not be a personal preference. If you are porting a code to another language, you should apply the conventions of the language that you are porting to.

I would certainly use C# conventions since the code will be used by C# developers, not C/C++ developers, right? Otherwise we would be still using ugly _int32 DWORD like code in C#.

Here are some good guides for C# conventions:

• C# Coding Standards – and Naming Conventions
• C# Coding Conventions (C# Programming Guide)