We Keep Coding

Issue related to concept of abstraction in OOPs

I was reading OOPs Concepts from internet using articles.
In one of article, I have read following about abstraction:
If we have a method named "CalculatePrice" inside the "Billing" class,
we are not concerned about the calculations inside the
"CalculatePrice" method. We just pass the necessary parameters and get
the output. We hide the implementation of "Calculate Price".
so my question is : In C#, we are using dlls and namespace and calls the specific methods. can we say that, dlls and namespaces are the concept of Abstractions ??
Thanks

No.
You should generally just think of dll-files and namespaces as ways to organize your projects.
The abstraction of CalculatePrice consists simply of the "hiding" of it's logic inside the method. When another piece of code calls the method, it does not care what happens inside it - it is only interested in the result.
Abstractions in C# (and .Net in general) are made using things like Classes, Interfaces, Abstract Classes, and method and properties that are defined and/or implemented in these.
Your focus should be on these concepts, and on how they are used together in different "patterns" to solve various types of problems.
To expand just a little on your example: If CalculatePrice was defined in an interface, then calling code would "talk to" that interface, without caring about what was behind it. An implementation of that interface - the code that actually performs the logic - could be anything. It could change, and keep changing, as long as it fulfills the requirements (the "contract") defined in the interface, since that would allow the calling code to keep using it.. and that is how abstraction works in C#.

Interesting that there are four answers all saying "no". In reality, the answer is "sometimes". If the implementation of CalculatePrice relies on another class, which is marked as internal, then its assembly does form part of the abstraction, since internal classes are only accessible to other classes in that assembly.
Namespaces in .NET do not form part of any abstraction though. In other languages they can, as internal can be tied to namespaces, but that is not how .NET languages work.
Such information hiding is the most basic form of abstraction though. C#'s most powerful abstraction tools are interfaces, support for dependency injection and its treatment of methods as values. If you are interested in understanding more about abstraction in C#, they are the three areas to focus on.

so my question is : In C#, we are using dlls and namespace and calls the specific methods. can we say that, dlls and namespaces are the concept of Abstractions ??
No.

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# Class function members declaration & implementation

Is there a concept in C# of class definition and implementation similar to what you find in C++?
I prefer to keep my class definitions simple by removing most, if no every, implementations details (it depends on several factors as you may know, but generally I move towards leaving most member implementation details outside the class definition). This has the benefit of giving me a bird's eye view of the class and its functionality.
However in C# it seems I'm forced to define my member functions at the point of declaration. Can this be avoided, or circumvent some way?
During my apprenticeship of C#, this is one aspect that is bothering me. Classes, especially complex ones, become increasingly harder to read.

This is really a case of needing to step back and see the bigger picture. Visual studio has many, many tools to help you write and manipulate your code, from outlining, #regions, class view, class diagrams, the Code Definition Window and many more.
C# isn't C++, if you try to make it so then you'll trip over yourself and no-one else will be able to read your code.
A day spent learning to use the Visual Studio tools will repay the investment many times over in terms of productivity and you'll soon wonder how you ever lived with that C++ way of doing things.
Update in response to comments
I have long since stopped regarding my code as simple text files. I regard code as an organic thing and I find that allowing myself to rely on a feature-rich IDE lets me move up and down levels of abstraction more easily and enhances my productivity no end. I suppose that could be a personal trait and perhaps it is not for everyone; I have a very 'visual' mind and I work best when I can see things in pictures.
That said, a clever IDE is not an excuse for poor style. There are best practices for writing "clean code" that don't require an smart IDE. One of the principles of clean code is to keep the definition of something near its use and I think that could be extended to cover declaration and definition. Personally, I think that separating the declaration and definition makes the code less clear. If you are finding that you get monster classes that are hard to understand, then that might be a sign that you're violating the Single Responsibility Principle.
The reason for separate definition and declaration in c/C++ is because C++ uses a single pass compiler, where forward references cannot be resolved later, unlike C# and its two-pass compiler which can happily find references regardless of the order of declaration. This difference stems from the different design philosphies of the compilers: C/C++ considers each source file to be a unit of compilation, whereas in C# the entire project is considered to be the unit of compilation. I suppose when you are used to working in the C/C++ way then separating the declaration and definition can appear to be a desirable element of style, but I personally believe that keeping declaration and use (or in this case declaration and definition) enhances, rather then reduces, readability. I used to be a C programmer myself until I started using C# in 2001. I always loved C and thought it's way of doing things was the 'bees knees'. These days when I read C/C++ code I think it looks absolutely horrendous and I can't believe we used to put up with working that way. It's all a matter of what you are used to, I suppose.

If you're using Visual Studio, you can take advantage of the Class View. You can also use the expand/collapse features of the source code editor.
In the improbable case that your tools don't help, you can always write a quick utility that will summarize the class for you.
If the class has been compiled, you can use Reflector to view the class, too.

No, there is no concept of implementation and header files in C# like you find in C/C++. The closest you can come to this is to use an interface, but the interface can only define the public members of your class. You would then end up with a 1-to-1 mapping of classes and interfaces, which really isn't the intent for how interfaces are to be used.

You could get a similar result by defining an interface for each of your classes which they then implement.

It sounds like you're referring to interfaces. In c#, you can define all of your member functions in an interface, and then implement them in another class.

In C# you could fake it with partial classes and partial members to a point, however, forward declarations and prototypes go the way of the dodo bird with your newer languages. Class View, Class Diagrams, Intellisense, et al, all help to remove the potential need for those "features".

Define an interface.
Then it's nice to be able to automatically implement the interface using a nice code assist tool.

If you find that a class is hard to read or difficult to understand, that's often a sign that the class is trying to do too much. Instead of trying to duplicate C++'s separation of declarations and definitions, consider refactoring the troublesome class into several classes so that each class has less responsibility.

Whenever it's possible or desirable, I'll go with the previous responses and define an interface. but it's not always appropriate.
alternatively, you can work around this "problem" by using some static code inspection tools. Resharper's "File Structure" window will give you exactly what you want. you can also use the built in "Class View" from visual studio. but I prefer the former.

The prototyping that I guess you are referring to does not really exist in C#. Defining interfaces as others have suggested will give you a point where you have declarations of your methods collected, but it's not the same thing as prototypes, and I am not so sure that it will help you in making your implementation classes easier to read.
C# is not C++, and should probably not be treated as C++.

Not sure what you mean by your classes continue to grow and become hard to read. Do you mean you want a header file like view of a class's members? If so, like John suggested, can't you just collapse the implementation so you don't have to see it?
If you don't want every class to implement a certain thing, then interfaces are probably the way to go (like others are saying).
But as a side thought, if your classes themselves get more and more complex as a your write the program, perhaps it's more of a design issue than a language problem? I think a class should have one responsibility and not take on more and more responsibilities as the program grows, rather the number of classes and how old classes are used should grow and get more complex as you continue to develop your software?

There are two remedies for this to make it more C++-ish:
Create an interface file that declares all method signatures and properties
Implement that interface in a class across multiple files by using the partial modifier on the class definitions
Edits:
// File: ICppLikeInterface.cs
public interface ICppLikeInterface
{
...
}
// File: CppLikeImplementation1.cs
public partial class CppLikeImplementation : ICppLikeInterface
{
...
}
// File: CppLikeImplementation2.cs
public partial class CppLikeImplementation : ICppLikeInterface
{
...
}
The C++ way of separating interface into a header file is mostly (I think) due to an early design decision when C was created to allow fast, incremental compilations during the "old days", as the compiler throws away any meta data, contrary to Smalltalk. This is not a matter with C# (nor Java) where tens of thousands of lines compiles within seconds on recent hardware (C++ still doesn't)

Common namespace naming suggestion

I have a layered application with namespaces:
App.Core - business layer logic services
App.Data - data access layer store classes and data access objects
App.Web - user interface layer
I also have business objects/DTOs. They reside in App.Objects namespace, but I dont like this naming convention. Why? Because this namespace will also have subnamespaces suffixed Objects like App.Objects.KeywordObjects. These subnamespaces can't be without the Objects suffix, because some of them will also contain classes with the same name (App.Objects.KeywordObjects will contain Keyword and Keywords classes).
I was thinking of changing App.Objects to something else. So I don't have duplicate "Objects" word. But I can't seem to find any usable word. And I don't want to use acronyms like DTO or BO.
How do you normally name your namespaces and what would you suggest I should use in this case.

I'm a fan of the guidelines in "Framework Design Guidelines" by Brad Abrams et Al, which would give you:
YourCompany.BusinessArea for your business objects and YourCompany.BusinessArea.Web for your web layer. I seem to remember there was also a guideline that an object shouldn't rely on a nested namespace (but you could rely on a parent namespace)

Namespace depth should correlate to frequency of usage. Why not put them in App? If your application revolves around the business objects, it makes sense to keep them at or near the root.
For a practical comparison, for many business applications the business objects are analogous to keeping common types in System. They are pervasive.

Here are some suggestions:
App.Contracts
App.Entities
Giving things a good name is hard to do. The best thing I can suggest is find something that works for you and try your best to be consistent in style and tone. This is easier said than done.
“When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.” - Lewis Caroll

I normally use common acronyms freely (so I wouldn't mind using App.BO, personally), but if you always have the Objects suffix in the subnamespace I think App.Business reads nicely, e.g App.Business.KeywordObjects with that "business [something] objects" phrase. (If you don't always have the Objects suffix for subnamespaces then this suggestion wouldn't work as well, as things would read strangely).

I would make the following change
App.Core => App.Services
App.Objects => App.Core
or
App.Objects => App.Model

App.Business ?

Naming types in a namespace by the .NET Framework Design Guidelines

I'm having some problems to come up with a sane type naming scheme for our new line of applications. I want to follow the .NET Framework Developer's Guide - Design Guidelines for Developing Class Libraries, but I'm starting to wonder if that's such a good idea.
I'd like to use the Company.Product.Feature namespace scheme as a basis.
Problem 1: We have our own control and form base classes, and I want these to go into the Company.Product.Forms namespace. However, according to the guidelines, we shouldn't let our type names be Control or Form, even if they are in our own Company.Product.Forms namespace, since they will clash with system types.
Problem 2: We have some distinct feature areas in the application and I want these to go into their own Company.Product.Feature namespace. Lots of these features have similar design, with a controller and some views, so under each Company.Product.Feature namespace I'd like to have types named Controller, SomeView, AnotherView, etc. However, according to the guidelines, we shouldn't have the same type names in different namespaces.
The only solution I see to overcome these problems is to prefix the types with something that in some way makes the namespaces redundant. Or not?

Microsoft clearly favors some redundancy. A common example is:
System.Xml.XmlDocument
General class names, even bound within a proper named namespace can cause headaches for the many programmers who like to avoid fully qualifying their class instantiations. "Document" could be an Xml, Html or word document. This ambiguity will cause endless confusion if you happen to import more than one namespace with a "Document" class.

I'd prefer Company.Product.UI, for some reason. I would use that naming for the web, too.
Regarding problem 1, if these are base types, you might include Base in the class name.
Then, you typically have a set of domain specific controls, which won't clash with built-in types.
If you also keep wrappers for common UI controls(TextBox, DropDownList etc), then i would actually recommend use a prefix for them,
maybe this prefix is an abbreviated name of the product.
And then, if you do that, then you might want to be consistent, and do it for all types,
regardless of whether they are ambigious names or not.
I tell you from my own experience.
You'll end up constantly hovering over variables to see their full type names, etc, you will use aliasing etc..
The code will be harder to read.
Problem 2: While at GUI layer, i tend to break these rules, because you will want naming consistency(common verbs; Show,Edit,List). If the guideline tells you otherwise, i would believe it is because it is simply not specific enough.

First post here in StackOverFlow, on an old question. Please, be kind with me :)
General class names, even bound within a proper named namespace can cause headaches for the many programmers who like to avoid fully qualifying their class instantiations. "Document" could be an Xml, Html or word document. This ambiguity will cause endless confusion if you happen to import more than one namespace with a "Document" class.
Microsoft MIGHT sometimes favor some redundency but it's not always de case.
As for the Document vs XMLDocument problematic, when you know there might be more than one type of document, why not just include the qualifying part of the namespace in the declaration?
For example :
Xml.XmlDocument
vs
Html.HtmlDocument
Instead of importing the XML and HTML namespace, why not just include the containing namespace? It would become like this :
Xml.Document
vs
Html.Document

If it makes logical sense, then do it. They are just guidelines, not the LAW. (not that you cant break that too.)

Having classes in the with the same name in different namespaces is just is against the guidelines for a reason, it makes reading the code just a little bit harder because when you see "Controller" you have to mentally map it to "Feature1.Controller" or "Feature2.Controller".
I would prefer to use Company.Product.Features.Feature1.Feature1Conroller with the redundant information or maybe Company.Product.Features.Feature1Controller if it bothers you (and I personally don't like having too many namespaces).
But feel free to break the guidelines, rules are there to make you think before you break them :-)