Use static class for caching, any negatives?

[Bob]

It seems to me that using static classes for caching as versus the
Application object has certain advantages. First, the cached values are
strongly typed, secondly, it's not ASP.NET specific so the same code can be
used for other .NET apps. I can't think of anything bad about it. I only
plan to use it for a small number of non-volatile values (but needs to be
read from DB or other sources once) so it's like I'd put everything in a
static class.

Here's a piece of sample code:

Class App {
private static XslTransform _menuXsl;

public XslTransform {
get { return _menuXsl; }
set { _menuXsl = value; }
}
}

 

[Scott Allen]

HI Bob:

You certainly make good point. Just remember the Application object
does a little extra work for you by synchronizing access to the
collection using a reader / writer lock. This will prevent corruption
of the container, and allows a little more throughput than using a
regular lock / mutex.

 

[Mr. Dot Net]

It's great, though:
Remeer to use lock mechanism if needed.

 

[Scott Allen]

Hi Bob:

Some of the classes in the .NET base class library have static members
which are thread safe, but not all. Anything we would write ourselves
would not be thread safe unless we add the code to make it safe!

--s