>>>>The class name needs to tell you what it does or holds. CurrentCallObject doesn't tell me anything. What call? Instead of generic "call", use what calls it or what it holds. And object isn't needed as it will be an object once instantiated.
>>>>
>>>>I'll refer you AGAIN to Framework Design Guidelines http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/framework-design-guidelines-krzysztof-cwalina/1100835446?ean=9780321545619 where all this is explained. They're online too http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms229042.aspx. Even though it refers to "framework" there is good advice for application developers
>>>>
>>>
>>>I checked the second link, but it doesn't help too much :(
>>>
>>>Would InvokeAttributes or InvokeProperties class be any better? Essentially, I want to have properties such as
>>>

>>>List<String> Errors
>>>
>>>List<String>Warnings
>>>
>>>List<Int32>ErrorCodes
>>>
>>>Int32 LastErrorCode
>>>

>>>etc. properties in this class.
>>
>>
>>Looks like you always want quick solutions (fixes) and hardly spend time understanding the basics
>
>How does your last comment help me?


If you had taken the time and the effort to learn the basics you would have figured out the why of message#1579375
Looks like you never take a moment to think. Problem ? Start googling. If that doesn't help start flooding the questions

Look, everyone has problems they don't understand. But most take the time to investigate, understand (and solve them)

Start reading books - start understanding the basics


>
>Basically, I proposed to have a class to hold certain properties rather to always pass them by reference a long time ago. Finally we all agreed it's a good thing to do and I am taking it upon me to implement such class and re-factor all the code we already have.
>
>But the problem now is to name this class properly. For me it is always a challenge to find a good name either for a class or for a property or for a method. Sometimes I do have inspiration and can name things quickly but sometimes I spent a lot of time deliberating like right now.
>
>That's why I sort of ask for help here.