We Keep Coding

Do extension methods benefit in any practical way from being a part of a static class vs. [theoretically] a part of a namespace?

When it comes to extension methods class names seem to do nothing, but provide a grouping which is what name-spaces do. As soon as I include the namespace I get all the extension methods in the namespace. So my question comes down to this: Is there some value I can get from the extension methods being in the static class?
I realize it is a compiler requirement for them to be put into a static class, but it seems like from an organizational perspective it would be reasonable for it to be legal to allow extension methods to be defined in name-spaces without classes surrounding them. Rephrasing the above question another way: Is there any practical benefit or help in some scenario I get as a developer from having extension methods attached to the class vs. attached to the namespace?
I'm basically just looking to gain some intuition, confirmation, or insight - I suspect it's may be that it was easiest to implement extension methods that way and wasn't worth the time to allow extension methods to exist on their own in name-spaces.

Perhaps you will find a satisfactory answer in Eric Lippert's blog post Why Doesn't C# Implement "Top Level" Methods? (in turn prompted by SO question Why C# is not allowing non-member functions like C++), whence (my emphasis):
I am asked "why doesn't C# implement feature X?" all the time. The
answer is always the same: because no one ever designed, specified,
implemented, tested, documented and shipped that feature. All six of
those things are necessary to make a feature happen. All of them cost
huge amounts of time, effort and money. Features are not cheap, and we
try very hard to make sure that we are only shipping those features
which give the best possible benefits to our users given our
constrained time, effort and money budgets.
I understand that such a general answer probably does not address the
specific question.
In this particular case, the clear user benefit was in the past not
large enough to justify the complications to the language which would
ensue. By restricting how different language entities nest inside each
other we (1) restrict legal programs to be in a common, easily
understood style, and (2) make it possible to define "identifier
lookup" rules which are comprehensible, specifiable, implementable,
testable and documentable.
By restricting method bodies to always be inside a struct or class, we make it easier to reason about the meaning of an unqualified
identifier used in an invocation context; such a thing is always an
invocable member of the current type (or a base type).

To me putting them in the class is all about grouping related functions inside a class. You may have a number of extension methods in the same namespace. If I wanted to write some extension methods for the DirectoryInfo and FileInfo classes I would create two classes in an IO namespace called DirectoryInfoExtensions and FileInfoExtensions.
You can still call the extension methods like you would any other static method. I dont know how the compiler works but perhaps the output assembly if compiled for .net 2 can still be used by legacy .net frameworks. It also means the existing reflection library can work and be used to run extension methods without any changes. Again I am no compiler expert but I think the "this" keyword in the context of an extension method is to allow for syntactical sugar that allows us to use the methods as though they belong to the object.

The .NET Framework requires that every method exist in a class which is within an assembly. A language could allow methods or fields to be declared without an explicitly-specified enclosing class, place all such methods in assembly Fnord into a class called Fnord_TopLevelDefault, and then search the Fnord_TopLevelDefault class of all assemblies when performing method lookup; the CLS specification would have to be extended for this feature to work smoothly for mixed-language projects, however. As with extension methods, such behavior could be CLS compliant if the CLS didn't acknowledge it, since code in a language which didn't use such a feature could use a "free-floating" method Foo in assembly Fnord by spelling it Fnord_TopLevelDefault.Foo, but that would be a bit ugly.
A more interesting question is the extent to which allowing an extension method Foo to be invoked from an arbitrary class without requiring a clearly visible reference to that class is less evil than would be allowing a non-extension static methods to be likewise invoked. I don't think Math.Sqrt(x) is really more readable than Sqrt; even if one didn't want to import Math everywhere, being able to do so at least locally could in some cases improve code legibility considerably.

They can reference other static class members internally.
You should not only consider the consumer side aspect, but also the code maintenance aspect.
Even though intellisense doesn't distinguish with respect to the owner class, the information is still there through tool tips and whatever productivity tools you have added to your IDE. This can easily be used to provide some context for the method in what otherwise would be a flat (and sometimes very long) list.
Consumer wise, bottom line, I do not think it matters much.

Am I using static in the right way?

I'm writing an XNA engine and I am storing all of the models in a List. In order to be able to use this throughout the engine, I've made this a public static List<Model> so I can access it from any new classes that I develop. It certainly makes obtaining the list of models really easy to get too, but is this the right usage? Or would I be better off actually passing a variable through in a method declaration?

In OOP it's generally advisable to avoid using static methods and properties, unless you have a very good reason to do so. One of the reasons for that is that in the future you may want to have two or more instances of this list for some reason, and then you'll be stuck with static calls.
Static methods and properties are too rigid. As Stevey states it:
Static methods are as flexible as
granite. Every time you use one,
you're casting part of your program in
concrete. Just make sure you don't
have your foot jammed in there as
you're watching it harden. Someday you
will be amazed that, by gosh, you
really DO need another implementation
of that dang PrintSpooler class, and
it should have been an interface, a
factory, and a set of implementation
classes. D'oh!

For game development I advocate "Doing The Simplest Thing That Could Possibly Work". That includes using global variables (public static in C#), if that is an easy solution. You can always turn it into something more formal later. The "find all references" tool in Visual Studio makes this really easy.
That being said, there are very few cases where a global variable is actually the "correct" way to do something. So if you are going to use it, you should be aware of and understand the correct solution. So you can make the best tradeoff between "being lazy" and "writing good code".
If you are going to make something global, you need to fully understand why you are doing so.
In this particular case, it sounds like you're trying to trying to get at content. You should be aware that ContentManager will automatically return the same content object if you ask for it multiple times. So rather than loading models into a global list, consider making your Game class's built-in ContentManager available via a public static property on your Game class.
Or, better still, there's a method that I prefer, that I think is a bit better: I explain it in the answer to another question. Basically you make the content references private static in the classes that use them and pass the ConentManager into public static LoadContent functions. This compartmentalises your use of static to individual classes, rather than using a global that is accessed from all over your program (which would be difficult to extricate later). It also correctly handles loading content at the correct time.

I'd avoid using static as much as possible, over time you'll just end up with spaghetti code.
If you pass it in the constructor you're eliminating an unnecessary dependency, low coupling is good. The fewer dependencies there are, the better.

I would suggest to implement a Singleon object which encapsulates the model list.
Have a look at the MSDN singleton implementation.

This is a matter of balance and trade-offs.
Of course, OOP purists will say that avoid such global variables at all costs, since it breaks code compartmentization by introducing something that goes "out of the box" for any module, and thus making it hard to maintain, change, debug etc.
However, my personal experience has been that it should be avoided only if you are part of a very large enterprise solutions team, maintaining a very large enterprise-class application.
For others cases, encapsulating globally-accessible data into a "global" object (or a static object, same thing) simplifies OOP coding to a great extent.
You may get the middle-ground by writing a global GetModels() function that returns the list of models. Or use DI to automatically inject the list of models.

Action on each method's return value

What I'd like to do is take some action using the value returned by every method in a class.
So for instance, if I have a class Order which has a method
public Customer GetCustomer()
{
Customer CustomerInstance = // get customer
return CustomerInstance;
}
Let's say I want to log the creation of these - Log(CustomerInstance);
My options (AFAIK) are:
Call Log() in each of these methods before returning the object. I'm not a fan of this because it gets unwieldy if used on a lot of classes with a lot of methods. It also is not an intrinsic part of the method's purpose.
Use composition or inheritance to layer the log callon the Order class similar to:
public Customer GetCustomer()
{
Customer CustomerInstance = this.originalCustomer.GetCustomer();
Log(CustomerInstance);
return CustomerInstance;
}
I don't think this buys me anything over #1.
Create extension methods on each of the returned types:
Customer CustomerInstance = Order.GetCustomer().Log();
which has just as many downsides.
I'm looking to do this for every (or almost every) object returned, automatically if possible, without having to write double the amount of code. I feel like I'm either trying to bend the language into doing something it's not supposed to, or failing to recognize some language feature that would enable this. Possible solutions would be greatly appreciated.

You need to look into Aspect Oriented Programming:
Typically, an aspect is scattered or tangled as code, making it harder to understand and maintain. It is scattered by virtue of the function (such as logging) being spread over a number of unrelated functions that might use its function, possibly in entirely unrelated systems, different source languages, etc. That means to change logging can require modifying all affected modules. Aspects become tangled not only with the mainline function of the systems in which they are expressed but also with each other. That means changing one concern entails understanding all the tangled concerns or having some means by which the effect of changes can be inferred.
Adding logging is one of the uses of this methodology.

You should check Microsofts Enterprise Library.
Think you may find usefull the Policy Injection Application Block.

Your option 1 is, in my opinion, the way to do it. Even if this will be at the end of each method, that's what is done. I would not add extra layers of obscurity because it's 'not an intrinsic purpose' of a method.
By the way, Aspect Oriented Programming addresses exactly this issue that you have (see ChrisF's answer), but then we're not talking C# anymore.

Utility classes.. Good or Bad?

I have been reading that creating dependencies by using static classes/singletons in code, is bad form, and creates problems ie. tight coupling, and unit testing.
I have a situation where I have a group of url parsing methods that have no state associated with them, and perform operations using only the input arguments of the method. I am sure you are familiar with this kind of method.
In the past I would have proceeded to create a class and add these methods and call them directly from my code eg.
UrlParser.ParseUrl(url);
But wait a minute, that is introducing a dependency to another class. I am unsure whether these 'utility' classes are bad, as they are stateless and this minimises some of the problems with said static classes, and singletons. Could someone clarify this?
Should I be moving the methods to the calling class, that is if only the calling class will be using the method. THis may violate the 'Single Responsibilty Principle'.

From a theoretical design standpoint, I feel that Utility classes are something to be avoided when possible. They basically are no different than static classes (although slightly nicer, since they have no state).
From a practical standpoint, however, I do create these, and encourage their use when appropriate. Trying to avoid utility classes is often cumbersome, and leads to less maintainable code. However, I do try to encourage my developers to avoid these in public APIs when possible.
For example, in your case, I feel that UrlParser.ParseUrl(...) is probably better handled as a class. Look at System.Uri in the BCL - this handles a clean, easy to use interface for Uniform Resource Indentifiers, that works well, and maintains the actual state. I prefer this approach to a utility method that works on strings, and forcing the user to pass around a string, remember to validate it, etc.

Utility classes are ok..... as long as they don't violate design principles. Use them as happily as you'd use the core framework classes.
The classes should be well named and logical. Really they aren't so much "utility" but part of an emerging framwework that the native classes don't provide.
Using things like Extension methods can be useful as well to align functionality onto the "right" class. BUT, they can be a cause of some confusion as the extensions aren't packaged with the class they extend usually, which is not ideal, but, still, can be very useful and produce cleaner code.

You could always create an interface and use that with dependency injection with instances of classes that implement that interface instead of static classes.
The question becomes, is it really worth the effort? In some systems, the answer in yes, but in others, especially smaller ones, the answer is probably no.

This really depends on the context, and on how we use it.
Utility classes, itself, is not bad. However, It will become bad if we use it the bad way. Every design pattern (especially Singleton pattern) can easily be turned into anti-pattern, same goes for Utility classes.
In software design, we need a balancing between flexibility & simplicity. If we're going to create a StringUtils which is only responsible for string-manipulation:
Does it violate SRP (Single Responsibility Principle)? -> Nope, it's the developers that put too much responsibilities into utility classes that violate SRP.
"It can not be injected using DI frameworks" -> Are StringUtils implementation gonna varies? Are we gonna switch its implementations at runtime? Are we gonna mock it? Of course not.
=> Utility classes, themselve, are not bad. It's the developers' fault that make it bad.
It all really depends on the context. If you're just gonna create a utility class that only contains single responsibility, and is only used privately inside a module or a layer. Then you're still good with it.

I agree with some of the other responses here that it is the classic singleton which maintains a single instance of a stateful object which is to be avoided and not necessarily utility classes with no state that are evil. I also agree with Reed, that if at all possible, put these utility methods in a class where it makes sense to do so and where one would logically suspect such methods would reside. I would add, that often these static utility methods might be good candidates for extension methods.

I really, really try to avoid them, but who are we kidding... they creep into every system. Nevertheless, in the example given I would use a URL object which would then expose various attributes of the URL (protocol, domain, path and query-string parameters). Nearly every time I want to create a utility class of statics, I can get more value by creating an object that does this kind of work.
In a similar way I have created a lot of custom controls that have built in validation for things like percentages, currency, phone numbers and the like. Prior to doing this I had a Parser utility class that had all of these rules, but it makes it so much cleaner to just drop a control on the page that already knows the basic rules (and thus requires only business logic validation to be added).
I still keep the parser utility class and these controls hide that static class, but use it extensively (keeping all the parsing in one easy to find place). In that regard I consider it acceptable to have the utility class because it allows me to apply "Don't Repeat Yourself", while I get the benefit of instanced classes with the controls or other objects that use the utilities.

Utility classes used in this way are basically namespaces for what would otherwise be (pure) top-level functions.
From an architectural perspective there is no difference if you use pure top-level "global" functions or basic (*) pure static methods. Any pros or cons of one would equally apply to the other.
Static methods vs global functions
The main argument for using utility classes over global ("floating") functions is code organization, file and directory structure, and naming:
You might already have a convention for structuring class files in directories by namespace, but you might not have a good convention for top-level functions.
For version control (e.g. git) it might be preferable to have a separate file per function, but for other reasons it might be preferable to have them in the same file.
Your language might have an autoload mechanism for classes, but not for functions. (I think this would mostly apply to PHP)
You might prefer to write import Acme:::Url; Url::parse(url) over import function Acme:::parse_url; parse_url();. Or you might prefer the latter.
You should check if your language allows passing static methods and/or top-level functions as values. Perhaps some languages only allow one but not the other.
So it largely depends on the language you use, and conventions in your project, framework or software ecosystem.
(*) You could have private or protected methods in the utility class, or even use inheritance - something you cannot do with top-level functions. But most of the time this is not what you want.
Static methods/functions vs object methods
The main benefit of object methods is that you can inject the object, and later replace it with a different implementation with different behavior. Calling a static method directly works well if you don't ever need to replace it. Typically this is the case if:
the function is pure (no side effects, not influenced by internal or external state)
any alternative behavior would be considered as wrong, or highly strange. E.g. 1 + 1 should always be 2. There is no reason for an alternative implementation where 1 + 1 = 3.
You may also decide that the static call is "good enough for now".
And even if you start with static methods, you can make them injectable/pluggable later. Either by using function/callable values, or by having small wrapper classes with object methods that internally call the static method.

They're fine as long as you design them well ( That is, you don't have to change their signature from time to time).
These utility methods do not change that often, because they do one thing only. The problem comes when you want to tight a more complex object to another. If one of them needs to change or be replaced, it will be harder to to if you have them highly coupled.
Since these utility methods won't change that often I would say that is not much problem.
I think it would be worst if you copy/paste the same utility method over and over again.
This video How to design a good API and why it matters by Joshua Bloch, explains several concepts to bear in mind when designing an API ( that would be your utility library ). Although he's a recognized Java architect the content applies to all the programming languages.

Use them sparingly, you want to put as much logic as you can into your classes so they dont become just data containers.
But, at the same time you can't really avoid utilites, they are required sometimes.
In this case i think it's ok.
FYI there is the system.web.httputility class which contains alot of common http utilities which you may find useful.

Justification for Reflection in C#

I have wondered about the appropriateness of reflection in C# code. For example I have written a function which iterates through the properties of a given source object and creates a new instance of a specified type, then copies the values of properties with the same name from one to the other. I created this to copy data from one auto-generated LINQ object to another in order to get around the lack of inheritance from multiple tables in LINQ.
However, I can't help but think code like this is really 'cheating', i.e. rather than using using the provided language constructs to achieve a given end it allows you to circumvent them.
To what degree is this sort of code acceptable? What are the risks? What are legitimate uses of this approach?

Sometimes using reflection can be a bit of a hack, but a lot of the time it's simply the most fantastic code tool.
Look at the .Net property grid - anyone who's used Visual Studio will be familiar with it. You can point it at any object and it it will produce a simple property editor. That uses reflection, in fact most of VS's toolbox does.
Look at unit tests - they're loaded by reflection (at least in NUnit and MSTest).
Reflection allows dynamic-style behaviour from static languages.
The one thing it really needs is duck typing - the C# compiler already supports this: you can foreach anything that looks like IEnumerable, whether it implements the interface or not. You can use the C#3 collection syntax on any class that has a method called Add.
Use reflection wherever you need dynamic-style behaviour - for instance you have a collection of objects and you want to check the same property on each.
The risks are similar for dynamic types - compile time exceptions become run time ones. You code is not as 'safe' and you have to react accordingly.
The .Net reflection code is very quick, but not as fast as the explicit call would have been.

I agree, it gives me the it works but it feels like a hack feeling. I try to avoid reflection whenever possible. I have been burned many times after refactoring code which had reflection in it. Code compiles fine, tests even run, but under special circumstances (which the tests didn't cover) the program blows up run-time because of my refactoring in one of the objects the reflection code poked into.
Example 1: Reflection in OR mapper, you change the name or the type of the property in your object model: Blows up run-time.
Example 2: You are in a SOA shop. Web Services are complete decoupled (or so you think). They have their own set of generated proxy classes, but in the mapping you decide to save some time and you do this:
ExternalColor c = (ExternalColor)Enum.Parse(typeof(ExternalColor),
internalColor.ToString());
Under the covers this is also reflection but done by the .net framework itself. Now what happens if you decide to rename InternalColor.Grey to InternalColor.Gray? Everything looks ok, it builds fine, and even runs fine.. until the day some stupid user decides to use the color Gray... at which point the mapper will blow up.

Reflection is a wonderful tool that I could not live without. It can make programming much easier and faster.
For instance, I use reflection in my ORM layer to be able to assign properties with column values from tables. If it wasn't for reflection I have had to create a copy class for each table/class mapping.
As for the external color exception above. The problem is not Enum.Parse, but that the coder didnt not catch the proper exception. Since a string is parsed, the coder should always assume that the string can contain an incorrect value.
The same problem applies to all advanced programming in .Net. "With great power, comes great responsibility". Using reflection gives you much power. But make sure that you know how to use it properly. There are dozens of examples on the web.

It may be just me, but the way I'd get into this is by creating a code generator - using reflection at runtime is a bit costly and untyped. Creating classes that would get generated according to your latest code and copy everything in a strongly typed manner would mean that you will catch these errors at build-time.
For instance, a generated class may look like this:
static class AtoBCopier
{
public static B Copy(A item)
{
return new B() { Prop1 = item.Prop1, Prop2 = item.Prop2 };
}
}
If either class doesn't have the properties or their types change, the code doesn't compile. Plus, there's a huge improvement in times.

I recently used reflection in C# for finding implementations of a specific interface. I had written a simple batch-style interpreter that looked up "actions" for each step of the computation based on the class name. Reflecting the current namespace then pops up the right implementation of my IStep inteface that can be Execute()ed. This way, adding new "actions" is as easy as creating a new derived class - no need to add it to a registry, or even worse: forgetting to add it to a registry...

Reflection makes it very easy to implement plugin architectures where plugin DLLs are automatically loaded at runtime (not explicitly linked at compile time).
These can be scanned for classes that implement/extend relevant interfaces/classes. Reflection can then be used to instantiate instances of these on demand.