We Keep Coding

Recommended way to prevent naming pollution by helper classes in C#?

I often come across the pattern that I have a main class and several smaller helper classes or structs.
I'd like to keep the names of thoses structs as clean as possible. So when I have a class that's called CarFinder that heavily makes use of some special Key object that is only (or mainly) used internally, I'd like to call that object Key instead of CarFinderKey.
Everything to remove all the extra fuzz that distracts me from when I try to understand the class while reading it.
Of course I don't want to pollute the rest of the code with a small helper class that is called Key - it most likely will clash and confuse.
In a perfect world I would have liked to have a keyword like internal to this namespace, but as that does not exist that leaves me the following options that I can think of:
Use internal and put the class in a different project.
Advantage: Perfect encapsulation.
Disadvantage: A lot of organisational overhead and unnecessary complicated dependencies.
Note: I'm not talking about really large self contained systems that undoubtedly deserve their own assembly.
Put it in a different child namespace, like CarFinding.Internal
Advantage: Easy to implement.
Disadvantage: Still can pollute when the namespace is accidently imported.
Put the helper class as a child class within CarFinder.
Advantage Doesn't pollute internally and can even be promoted as a public helper struct that is exposed to the outer world with CarFinder.Key
Disadvantage Have to put the helper class within the same file, or encapsulate it in an external file with public partial class around it. The first one makes a file unneccesary long, the second just feels really ugly.
Anyway call it CarFinderKey
Advantage Easy to implement.
Disadvantage Adds in my opinion too much fuzz to CarFinder. Still unncessary pollutes the naming, just with a name that is not likely to clash.
What is the recommended guideline?

Personally, I don't mind the extra "fuzz" caused by CarFinderKey, and here is why: Once worked on a very large project where we tried to use namespaces to disambiguate names.
So as you expand your system, you can very easily end up with 10 tabs open in your code editor, all named "Key.cs". That was seriously not fun.

It's opinion based. Anyway, I would:
try to make it a private nested class of CarFinder, which usually fails because the Key needs to be passed over to CarManager, you know what I mean. Public nested classes are discouraged.
I would put it into a sub-namespace called Core, a common name for internal stuff. For me, Core is "namespace internal" by naming convention.
The larger the project, the longer names you need. CarFinderKey is still a valid option.
I would never create additional assemblies just for this. It just doesn't feel right.

I had the same dilemma many times, and personally use (3) and a variation of (4).
(3): I have no problem with neither putting the nested class/struct within the same file (if it is small and really tied with the parent class), nor using a separate file within partial ParentClass declaration - the only drawback is that it gets one more level of indentation, but I can live with that. I also have no problem with violating FxCop rules or other recommendations - after all, they are just recommendations, not mandatory. But many people do have problems with all or some of these, so let move on.
(4): You already described the cons. What I'm going to share is how I do overcome them. Again, it's personal and one might or might not like it, but here it is.
First, let say we use a separate file for the key class and name the class CarFinderKey.
Then, inside the code file for the CarFinder class, we put the following line at the end of (or anywhere inside) the using section:
using Key = CarFinderKey;
This way, only inside the CarFinder class code file, anywhere CarFinderKey is needed, we can just refer to it simply as Key, what was the goal. At the same time we keep all the advantages and no clashes. Intellisence works w/o any problem. In VS2015, the lightbulb would even suggest to "simplify the name" for you anywhere it finds CarFinderKey inside that file.

Your decision should depend on your design. Is your Key class really a key only for CarFinders, or could it also be used to find motorcycles or houses or whatever.
One of the first rules the famous Gang of Four stipulated was "Design for change". If you really think that in the very near future your key could also be used to find houses or motorcycle, then it would not be a good idea to make your key class thus private that other could not use it.
Since you are speaking about private helper classes, I assume your key is only useful for CarFinders.
If that is the case and your design dictates that the Key is only useful for CarFinders, or maybe even: if it is designed such that it even isn't useful outside CarFinders the Key class ought to be part of the CarFinders class. Compare this to a simple integer that you would use in the CarFinders class, you would declare it private inside the CarFinders class wouldn't you?
Leaves you with the problem of one big file or a partial definition. From design point of view there is no difference. For the compiler there is also no difference. The only difference is for humans who have to read it. If you think that users of your class seldom have to read the definition of your key class, then it is better to define it in a separate file. However, if you regularly need to read the key class while reading the CarFinder class you should make access to the key class as easy as possible. If your development environment is fairly file oriented instead of class oriented, then I think that in that case the disadvantage of a large file is less than the disadvantage of having to switch between files.

I would put the class and their "helpers" in their own namespace MyNamespace.CarFinding,
so that you have :
MyNamespace.CarFinding.CarFinder
MyNamespace.CarFinding.Key
and I will just put this namespace in a sub-folder of the project.
This will not block the internal helper class to be used elsewhere in the project, but from the parent namespace you could reference your helper as CarFinding.Key

How to organise class files in C#

I am working on a simple project and I have created several classes, interfaces, one static class and so on. What I am asking is, how to organise this files into namespaces. Is there any good practice for this or I should just follow the logic of my program. I am currently thinking that I should move the interfaces into one namespace and all the classes into another. So what can you advise me. I am really curious to find out the best way to separate my files.
Have a nice day :)

You should group your code in namespace with other types which have the highest cohesion. That is, group types together when they perform common functionality. The type of cohesion you're suggesting is logical cohesion, and is really a rather weak form of cohesion.

Namespaces are mainly for the benifit of large projects. Since you are working on a "simple project", I suggest that you use a single namespace for the entire application. Since everything in C# must be a type or a member of a type (i.e., there are no global variables or methods), the types that you create (objects, classes, interfaces, enums, etc.) are usually a good-enough organizing feature for a small project.
For slightly larger projects, I suggest putting each tier into its own namespace.
For even larger projects, namespaces should be a logical grouping of related types or subsystems, according to preference.

Into specific namespace you should put everything which concerns some matter. For example all the stuff concerning string manipulations you should put into separate namespace, e.g. com.server.string.
It's very important especially in case you have class with names existing in other namespaces.

The only reason to split your code in files is to make your code maintainable.
As a general rule of thumb, I tend to create folders for enum's, struct's, models, controllers, etc. Depending on the size of the solution, you keep nesting in groups after that.
Sometimes it makes sense to just put the entire namespace in the file, other times, you let your nesting take care of the naming.
A good rule of tumb is that you should be able to find what you are looking for quicky, and, more importantly, someone who hasn't seen the project, should find his way around quickly.
One thing to keep in mind is that you never put more then one thing in one file. Never put two classes in the same file, never append enums at the end of a class file, etc.

You are confusing files with classes. You can create folders in Visual Studio to organize your files. That way you can group interfaces and classes (which is what I usually do). VS will automatically put new classes for which the file is in those folders in the namespace of the same name. This is usually not what you want (I don't know how to turn it off, so I can't help you with that).
I agree with the other answers here that you should group types based on what they do, not on what kind of language construct they are.

C#: Un-nested struct in same .cs file as related class?

If I'm dealing with one class and one public struct (not nested), Should I create a separate .cs just for the struct? Or leave it un-nested in its .cs file of the class? (This is assuming the struct relates to the class, but isn't so exclusive to the class that it should be nested and declared private)
Edit: I removed my initial question about two classes because I found C# classes in separate files?

Note that the only person(s) that can accurately answer this question is you, and your team. If your team is happy to find several related types inside a single file, combined due to ... whatever... then what I, or whomever other person, says, should be just ... irrelevant.
In any case, I would turn the question upside down:
Is there any reason to place two separate types (related by names, functionality, or whatever, but separate nonetheless) in the same file
and I've yet to come up with a good reason.
There are extensions/addins to Visual Studio where you can type in the name, and quickly navigate to the file, and I can think of three, but there are undoubtedly others:
DPack
ReSharper
CodeRush/Refactor! Pro
The first allows you to quickly navigate to a file by name. If you know the type, but have people putting multiple types into the same type, this will not be helpful, at all.
The second and third, lets you navigate to a type by name, but you shouldn't rely on people having those, or knowing how to use them.
To that end, I would advocate following these rules:
Project names should be identical to the root namespace of that project. I differ from this point myself where in some cases I name my projects "...Core", and I then remove "Core" from the namespace, but otherwise, leave the project name identical to the namespace
Use folders in the project to build namespace hierarchies
The name of a type should correspond 100% to the name of the file + whatever extension is right for your language. So "YourType" should be "YourType.cs", "YourType.vb" or "YourType.whatever" depending on language

That depends on who you ask.
I, personally, find it easier to read if they are all, always, broken out. However, the compiler doesn't care... so whatever you and your team agree is easier to understand.

In my opinion it's a good practice to avoid that. Some day a developer will be looking around for ClassBar in the project and won't be able to find it easily because it's nested in ClassFoo.cs
Tools like Resharper have a neat feature where you can just select a class, right click, place in new file to make this easier.
If you read any of the popular coding standards (Lance Hunt, iDesign, Framework Design Guidelines etc) most of them advocate 1 class per file.

Its annoying to scroll down and search for how many class each.cs file contains/hides.
Maintainability issue while using version control
Usability with our team.
Check here for more interesting discussion on same.

I think it was less about whether you can or whether you should. For things like this, I feel it's best to look to the convention in the rest of the codebase. Sometime conformity is better because it makes other developers jobs easier becaues everybody knows where things are.
If it's entirely new project and you are setting the standards here by yourself, do what makes sense to you. To me if the struct has no use outside the related class, I may put them in the same file. Otherwise, I seperate them out.

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.

Interfaces in Class Files

Should my interface and concrete implementation of that interface be broken out into two separate files?

If you want other classes to implement that interface, it would probably be a good idea, if only for cleanliness. Anyone looking at your interface should not have to look at your implementation of it every time.

If there is only one implementation: why the interface?
If there is more than one implementation: where do you put the others?

If by different files you mean different xxx.cs files within your assembly, then normally due to my own practices I would say yes - but this is down to the house standards you use. If you're just programming for yourself, then I would say this is good coding practice, it keeps everything clean and easy to read. The smaller the blocks of code in any given file, the easier something is to follow (within reason), obviously you can start getting into partial classes where things can start getting ridiculous if you don't keep a reign on it.
As a rule, I keep my projects in a logical folder structure where portions of the project might be allocated into folders DAL or BM and within there I might have a number of logically named folders which each contain a number of files: one interface, one implementation and any helper classes specific to those.
However, all that said, your team/in-house best practices should be adopted if you're working within a team of developers.

Separate files... FTW! You might even want to create separate projects/assemblies depending on how extensible your code is. At the very least it should probably be in a separate namespace.
The whole point of an interface is so that the code that uses the interface doesn't care about the implementation. Therefore they should be as loosely associated as possible, which they won't be if they are in the same file.
But as #balabaster notes, it depends on what your team's practices (although they are not always "best practices") are.

Yes, for the classes they're called partial class,
take a look link text

General rule of thumb, yes. An Interface means it may be implemented by other classes, it is cleaner and easier to manager when they are clearly in separate files.
What's more, depending on the level of separation and isolation your application is going to take, you would even want to place your interfaces in its own project. Then consuming projects would reference the interface project instead of each and every assembly that carries implementations of that interface.

Yes, even if one gives counter arguments such as there's only one implementation or he/she foresees that there will be only one implementation for a long time or he/she is the only user/developer, etc. If there are multiple implementations, multiple users, etc, then it's obvious that you would want to keep them in separate files. So why should one treat it differently in the case of one implementation only?