Develop Reference

using attribute to read Method Parameters

I want to log the entry of methods. In entry log I would have inputs\parameters received by the method. This has to be done for thousands of methods.
I thought of doing this logging of input parameters using C# ATTRIBUTES, since they fired before method call. (Something similar to ActionFilters in MVC)
Is that possible to read method parameters through attributes?

The concept you are looking for is called aspect oriented programming (AOP). It is a technique that allows you to "weave" in blocks of boilerplate code across your application code. Logging is a perfect example for that. You can either go the hard way and implement logging before and after each method call manually (which is on the one hand not feasible in large projects and on the other hand error prone).
Or you can use an AOP Framework that allows you to define these cross cutting functions in one place and apply it declaratively to your application code. There are several approaches to achieve this; one is to create IL after the build of the application logic and therefore integrating the aspects at compile time. A well known example for this is PostSharp. There also is a free edition that is good for the start.
BTW: PostSharp heavily relies on attributes, so you're on the right track.
Another option is to integrate the aspects at run time (keyword is interception). Most IoC Frameworks offer this. This approach is easy to use but has some downsides IMHO (weaker runtime Performance, only virtual methods can be intercepted).

Attributes are not 'fired before method call', the code that invokes a method that is decorated with an Attribute may (or may not) do something based on the presence of the Attribute.
The Attribute doesn't know the member it is applied on, nor can access it in any (straight forward) way.

Simplest, fastest way to break out all dependencies from a class

When working with legacy code, and trying to create tests, I often break out dependencies from classes or methods so I can write unit tests using mocks for these dependencies. Dependencies most often come in the form of calls to static classes and objects created using the new keyword in the constructor or other locations in that class.
In most cases, static calls are handled either by wrapping the static dependency, or if its a singleton pattern (or similar) in the form of StaticClass.Current.MethodCall() passing that dependency by its interface go the constructor instead.
In most cases, uses of the new keyword in the constructor is simply replaced by passing that interface in the constructor instead.
In most cases, uses of the new keyword in other parts of the class, is handled either by the same method as above, or by if needed create a factory, and pass the factory's interface in the constructor.
I always use Resharpers refactoring tools to help me all of these break-outs, however most things are still manual labour (which could be automated), and for some legacy classes and methods that can be a very very tedious process. Is there any other refactoring plugins and/or tools which would help me in this process? Is there a "break out all depencencies from this class in a single click" refactoring tool? =)
It sounds to me like all these steps are common for many developers and a common problem, and before I attempt writing plugin to Resharper or CodeRush, I have to ask, because someone has probably already attempted this..
ADDED:
In reflection to answers below: even if you might not want to break out everything at once (one click total break out might cause more problems than it helps) still being able to simply break out 1 methods dependencies, or 1-2 dependencies easily, would be of big difference.
Also, refactoring code has a measure of "try and see what happens just to learn how everything fits together", and a one click total break out would help that process tons, even if you dont check that code in..

I don't think there is any tool that can automate this for you. Working with legacy code means -as you know- changing code with little steps at a time. The steps are often deliberately small to prevent errors from being made. Usually the first change you should make is one that makes that code testable. After you've written the test you change that part of the code in such way that you fix the bug or implement the RFC.
Because you should take small steps I believe it is hard to use a refactoring tool to magically make all your dependencies disappear. With legacy systems you would hardly ever want to make big changes at once, because the risk of breaking (and not finding out because of the lack of tests) is too big. This however, doesn’t mean refactoring tools aren’t useful in this scenario. On the contrary; they help a lot.
If you haven't already, I'd advise you to read Michael Feathers' book Working Effectively with Legacy Code. It describes in great details a series of patterns that help you refactor legacy code to a more testable system.
Good luck.

When it comes to static call dependencies, you might want to check out Moles. It's able to do code injection at run-time to stub out any static or non-virtual method call with your own test implementation. This is handy for testing legacy code that wasn't designed using testable dependency-injected interfaces.

Refactoring Singleton Overuse

Today I had an epiphany, and it was that I was doing everything wrong. Some history: I inherited a C# application, which was really just a collection of static methods, a completely procedural mess of C# code. I refactored this the best I knew at the time, bringing in lots of post-college OOP knowledge. To make a long story short, many of the entities in code have turned out to be Singletons.
Today I realized I needed 3 new classes, which would each follow the same Singleton pattern to match the rest of the software. If I keep tumbling down this slippery slope, eventually every class in my application will be Singleton, which will really be no logically different from the original group of static methods.
I need help on rethinking this. I know about Dependency Injection, and that would generally be the strategy to use in breaking the Singleton curse. However, I have a few specific questions related to this refactoring, and all about best practices for doing so.
How acceptable is the use of static variables to encapsulate configuration information? I have a brain block on using static, and I think it is due to an early OO class in college where the professor said static was bad. But, should I have to reconfigure the class every time I access it? When accessing hardware, is it ok to leave a static pointer to the addresses and variables needed, or should I continually perform Open() and Close() operations?
Right now I have a single method acting as the controller. Specifically, I continually poll several external instruments (via hardware drivers) for data. Should this type of controller be the way to go, or should I spawn separate threads for each instrument at the program's startup? If the latter, how do I make this object oriented? Should I create classes called InstrumentAListener and InstrumentBListener? Or is there some standard way to approach this?
Is there a better way to do global configuration? Right now I simply have Configuration.Instance.Foo sprinkled liberally throughout the code. Almost every class uses it, so perhaps keeping it as a Singleton makes sense. Any thoughts?
A lot of my classes are things like SerialPortWriter or DataFileWriter, which must sit around waiting for this data to stream in. Since they are active the entire time, how should I arrange these in order to listen for the events generated when data comes in?
Any other resources, books, or comments about how to get away from Singletons and other pattern overuse would be helpful.

Alright, here's my best shot at attacking this question:
(1) Statics
The Problem with static that you may be having is that it means different things in .NET and say, C++. Static basically means it's accessible on the class itself. As for it's acceptability id say it's more of something you'd use to do non-instance specific operations on a class. Or just general things like Math.Abs(...). What you should use for a global config is probably a statically accessed property for holding the current/active configuration. Also maybe some static classes for loading/saving setting the config, however the config should be an Object so it can be passed around manipulated, etc.
public class MyConfiguration
{
public const string DefaultConfigPath = "./config.xml";
protected static MyConfiguration _current;
public static MyConfiguration Current
{
get
{
if (_current == null)
Load(DefaultConfigPath);
return _current;
}
}
public static MyConfiguration Load(string path)
{
// Do your loading here
_current = loadedConfig;
return loadedConfig;
}
// Static save function
//*********** Non-Static Members *********//
public string MyVariable { get; set; }
// etc..
}
(2) Controller/Hardware
You should probably look into a reactive approach, IObserver<> or IObservable<>, it's part of the Reactive Framework (Rx).
Another approach is using a ThreadPool to schedule your polling tasks, as you may get a large number of threads if you have a lot of hardware to pool. Please make sure before using any kind of Threading to learn a lot about it. It's very easy to make mistakes you may not even realize. This Book is an excelent source and will teach you lots.
Either way you should probably build services (just a name really) for managing your hardware which are responsible for collecting information about a service (essentially a model-pattern). From there your central controller can use them to access the data keeping the program logic in the controller, and the hardware logic in the service.
(3) Global Configuration
I may have touched this subject in point #1 but generally that's where we go, if you find yourself typing too much you can always pull it out of there assuming the .Instance is an object.
MyConfiguration cfg = MyConfiguration.Current
cfg.Foo // etc...
(4) Listening For data
Again the reactive framework could help you out, or you could build up an event-driven model that uses triggers for incoming data. This will make sure you're not blocking on a thread till data comes in. It can reduce the complexity of your application greatly.

for starters, you can limit use of singleton through the "Registry" pattern, which effectively means you have one singleton which allows you to get to a bunch of other preconfigured objects.
This is not a "fix" but an improvement, it makes the many objects that are singletons a little more normal and testable. eg... (totally contrived example)
HardwareRegistry.SerialPorts.Serial1.Send("blah");
but the real problem seems to be you are struggling with making a set of objects that work nicely together. There's two kind of steps in OO.... configuring objects, and letting objects do their thing.
so perhaps look at how you can configure non singleton objects to work together, and then hang that off a registry.
Static :-
Plenty of exceptions to the rules here, but in general, avoid it, but it is useful for doing singletons, and creating methods that do "general" computing outside the context of an object. ( like Math.Min )
Data Monitoring :-
its often better to do as you hint at, create a thread with a bunch of preconfigured objects that will do your monitoring. Use message passing to communicate between threads (through a thread safe queue) to limit thread locking problems. Use the registry pattern to access hardware resources.
you want something like a InstrumentListner that uses an InstrumentProtocol (which you subclass for each protocol) to I dunno, LogData. The command pattern may be of use here.
Configuration:-
have your configuration information and use something like the "builder" pattern to translate your configuration into a set of objects set up in a particular way. ie, don't make your classes aware of configuation, make a object that configures objects in a particular way.
Serial Ports :-
I do a bunch of work with these, what I have is a serial connection, which generates a stream of characters which it posts as an event. Then I have something that interprets the protocol stream into meaningful commands. My protocol classes work with a generic "IConnection" of which a SerialConnection inherits..... I also have TcpConnections, MockConnections, etc, to be able to inject test data, or pipe serial ports from one computer to another, etc. So Protocol classes just interpret a stream, have a statemachine, and dispatch commands. The protocol is preconfigured with a Connection, Various things get registered with the protocol, so when it has meaningful data they will be triggered and do their thing. All this is built from a configuration at the beginning, or rebuilt on the fly if something changes.

Since you know about Dependency Injection, have you considered using an IoC container to manage lifetimes? See my answer to a question on static classes.

You (the OP) seem preoccupied with OO design, well, I'll put it this way when thinking about the static variables things. The core concept is encapsulation and reuse; somethings you could care less about reusing but you almost always want the encapsulation. If it's a static variable, it's not really encapsulated, is it? Think about who needs to access it, why, and how far you can HIDE it from client code. Good designs often can change their internals without much breakage to clients, that is what you want to think about. I agree with Scott Meyers (Effective C++) about many things. OOP goes way beyond the class keyword. If you've never heard of it it, look up properties: yes they can be static, and C# has a very good way of using them. As opposed to literally using a static variable. Like I hinted at the start of this list item: think about how not to shoot yourself in the foot later as the class changes with time, that's something many programmers fail to do when designing classes.
Take a look at that Rx framework someone mentioned. The threading model to use, for such a situation as you described, is not readily decidable without more specifics about the use case IMHO. Be sure you know what you're doing with threads. A lot of people can't figure out threads to save their lives; it's no that hard, being tread safe can be when (re)using code. Remember controllers should often be separate from the objects they are controlling (E.g. not the same class); if you don't know it, look up a book on MVC and buy gang of four.
Depends on what you need. For many applications a class that is almost entirely filled with static data, is good enough; like a singleton for free. It can be done very OO. Sometimes you would rather have multiple instances or play with injection, that makes it more complex.
I suggest threads and events. The ease of making code event driven is actually one of the nicer things about C# IMHO.
Hmm, killing off singletons...
In my experience, a lot of the more common uses that young programmers put singletons to, are little more than a waste of the class keyword. Namely something they meant as a stateful module being rolled into a highlander class; and there are some bad singleton implementations out there to match. Whether this is because they failed to learn what they're doing, or only had Java in college, I dunno. Back in C land, it's called a using data at file scope and exposing an API. In C# (and Java) you're kind of bound to it being a class more than many languages. OOP != class keyword; learn the lhs well.
A decently written class can use static data to effectively implement a singleton, and make the compiler do the leg work of keeping it one, or as one as you are ever going to get of anything. Do NOT replace singletons with inheritance unless you seriously know what the heck you are doing. Poorly done inheritance of such things, leads to more brittle code that knows waaaay to much. Classes should be dumb, data is smart. That sounds stupid unless you look at the statement deeply. Using inheritance IMHO for such a thing, is generally a bad thing(tm), languages have the concept of modules/packages for a reason.
If you are up for it, hey you did convert it to singletons ages ago right? Sit down and think a bit: how can I best structure this app, in order to make it work XXX way, then think how doing it XXX way impacts things, for example is doing this one way going to be a source of contention among threads? You can go over a lot of things in an hour like that. When you get older, you'll learn better techniques.
Here is one suggestion for an XXX way to start with: (visualize) write(^Hing) a composite controller class, that works as a manager over the objects it references. Those objects were your singletons, not the the controller holds them, and they are but instances of those classes. This isn't the best design for a lot of applications (particularly can be an issue in heavily threaded ones IMHO), but it will generally solve what causes most younglings to reach for a singleton, and it will perform suitably for a vast array of programs. It's uh, like design pattern CS 102. Forget the singleton you learned in CS 607.
That controlling class, perhaps "Application' would be a more apt ;), basically solves your need for singletons and for storing configuration. How to do it in a sublimely OO way (assuming you do understand OOP) and not shoot yourself in the foot (again), is an exercise for your own education.
If it shows, I am not a fan of the so called singleton pattern, particularly how it is often misused. Moving a code base away from it, often depends on how much refactoring you are prepared to use. Singletons are like global variables: convenient but not butter. Hmm, I think I'll put that in my quotations file, has a nice phrase to it...
Honestly, you know more about the code base and the application in question then anyone here. So no one can really design it for you, and advice speaks less then action, at least where I come from.

I limit myself to at most two singletons in an application / process. One is usually called SysConfig and houses things that might otherwise end up as global variables or other corrupt concepts. I don't have a name for the second one since, so far, I've never actually reached my limit. :-)
Static member variables have their uses but I view them as I view proctologists. A lifesaver when you need one but the odds should be a "million to one" (Seinfeld reference) that you can't find a better way to solve the problem.
Create a base instrument class that implements a threaded listener. Derived classes of that would have instrument specific drivers, etc. Instantiate a derived class for each instrument then store the object in a container of some sort. At cleanup time just iterate through the container. Each instrument instance should be constructed by passing it some registration information on where to send its output/status/whatever. Use your imagination here. The OO stuff gets quite powerful.

I recently had to tackle a similar problem, and what I did seemed to work well for me, maybe it will help you:
(1) Group all "global" information into a single class. Let's call it Configuration.
(2) For all classes which used to use these static objects, change them to (ultimately) inherit from a new abstract base class which looks something like
abstract class MyBaseClass {
protected Configuration config; // You can also wrap it in a property
public MyBaseClass(Configuration config) {
this.config = config;
}
}
(3) Change all constructors of classes deriving from MyBaseClass accordingly. Then just create one instance of Configuration at start and pass it on everywhere.
Cons:
You need to refactor many of your constructors and every place in which they are called
This won't work well if you do not derive your top-level classes from Object. Well, you can add the config field to the derived class, it's just less elegant.
Pros
Not a lot of effort to just change inheritance and constructors, and bang - you can switch all Configuration.Instance with config.
You get rid of static variables completely; so no problems now if, for example, your application suddenly turns into a library and someone is trying to invoke multiple methods concurrently or whatever.

Great question. A few quick thoughts from me...
static in C# should only be used for data that is exactly the same for all instances of a given class. Since you're currently stuck in Singleton hell you only have one instance of everything anyways, but once you break out of that this is the general rule (at least, it is for me). If you start threading your classes you may want to back off on static usage because then you have potential concurrency issues, but that's something that can be tackled later.
I'm not sure how your hardware actually works, but assuming that there's some basic functionality that's the same across all of them (like, how you interface with them at a raw data level or similar) then this is a perfect instance to create a class hierarchy. The base class implements the low level / similar stuff with virtual methods for descendant classes to override to actually properly interpret the data / feed it onward / whatever.
Good luck.

How to unit test code that is highly complex behind the public interface

I'm wondering how I should be testing this sort of functionality via NUnit.
Public void HighlyComplexCalculationOnAListOfHairyObjects()
{
// calls 19 private methods totalling ~1000 lines code + comments + whitespace
}
From reading I see that NUnit isn't designed to test private methods for philosophical reasons about what unit testing should be; but trying to create a set of test data that fully executed all the functionality involved in the computation would be nearly impossible. Meanwhile the calculation is broken down into a number of smaller methods that are reasonably discrete. They are not however things that make logical sense to be done independently of each other so they're all set as private.

You've conflated two things. The Interface (which might expose very little) and this particular Implementation class, which might expose a lot more.
Define the narrowest possible Interface.
Define the Implementation class with testable (non-private) methods and attributes. It's okay if the class has "extra" stuff.
All applications should use the Interface, and -- consequently -- don't have type-safe access to the exposed features of the class.
What if "someone" bypasses the Interface and uses the Class directly? They are sociopaths -- you can safely ignore them. Don't provide them phone support because they violated the fundamental rule of using the Interface not the Implementation.

To solve your immediate problem, you may want to take a look at Pex, which is a tool from Microsoft Research that addresses this type of problem by finding all relevant boundary values so that all code paths can be executed.
That said, had you used Test-Driven Development (TDD), you would never had found yourself in that situation, since it would have been near-impossible to write unit tests that drives this kind of API.
A method like the one you describe sounds like it tries to do too many things at once. One of the key benefits of TDD is that it drives you to implement your code from small, composable objects instead of big classes with inflexible interfaces.

As mentioned, InternalsVisibleTo("AssemblyName") is a good place to start when testing legacy code.
Internal methods are still private in the sense that assemblys outside of the current assembly cannot see the methods. Check MSDN for more infomation.
Another thing would be to refactor the large method into smaller, more defined classes. Check this question I asked about a similiar problem, testing large methods.

Personally I'd make the constituent methods internal, apply InternalsVisibleTo and test the different bits.
White-box unit testing can certainly still be effective - although it's generally more brittle than black-box testing (i.e. you're more likely to have to change the tests if you change the implementation).

HighlyComplexCalculationOnAListOfHairyObjects() is a code smell, an indication that the class that contains it is potentially doing too much and should be refactored via Extract Class. The methods of this new class would be public, and therefore testable as units.
One issue to such a refactoring is that the original class held a lot of state that the new class would need. Which is another code smell, one that indicates that state should be moved into a value object.

I've seen (and probably written) many such hair objects. If it's hard to test, it's usually a good candidate for refactoring. Of course, one problem with that is that the first step to refactoring is making sure it passes all tests first.
Honestly, though, I'd look to see if there isn't some way you can break that code down into a more manageable section.

Get the book Working Effectively with Legacy Code by Michael Feathers. I'm about a third of the way through it, and it has multiple techniques for dealing with these types of problems.

Your question implies that there are many paths of execution throughout the subsystem. The first idea that pops into mind is "refactor." Even if your API remains a one-method interface, testing shouldn't be "impossible".

trying to create a set of test data
that fully executed all the
functionality involved in the
computation would be nearly impossible
If that's true, try a less ambitious goal. Start by testing specific, high-usage paths through the code, paths that you suspect may be fragile, and paths for which you've had reported bugs.
Refactoring the method into separate sub-algorithms will make your code more testable (and might be beneficial in other ways), but if your problem is a ridiculous number of interactions between those sub-algorithms, extract method (or extract to strategy class) won't really solve it: you'll have to build up a solid suite of tests one at a time.

Creating a Catch-All AppToolbox Class - Is this a Bad Practice?

Never sure where to place functions like:
String PrettyPhone( String phoneNumber ) // return formatted (999) 999-9999
String EscapeInput( String inputString ) // gets rid of SQL-escapes like '
I create a Toolbox class for each application that serves as a repository for functions that don't neatly fit into another class. I've read that such classes are bad programming practice, specifically bad Object Oriented Design. However, said references seem more the opinion of individual designers and developers more than an over-arching consensus. So my question is, Is a catch-all Toolbox a poor design pattern? If so, why, and what alternative is there?

Great question. I always find that any sufficiently complex project require "utility" classes. I think this is simply because the nature of object-oriented programming forces us to place things in a neatly structured hierarchical taxonomy, when this isn't always feasible or appropriate (e.g. try creating an object model for mammals, and then squeeze the platypus in). This is the problem which motivates work into aspect oriented programming (c.f. cross cutting concern). Often what goes into a utility class are things that are cross-cutting concerns.
One alternative to using toolbox or utility classes, are to use extension methods to provide additional needed functionality to primitive types. However, the jury is still out on whether or not that constitutes good software design.
My final word on the subject is: go with it if you need, just make sure that you aren't short-cutting better designs. Of course, you can always refactor later on if you need to.

I think a static helper class is the first thing that comes to mind. It is so common that some even refer to it as part of the object-oriented design. However, the biggest problem with helper classes is that they tend to become a large dump. I think i saw this happen on a few of the larger projects i was involved in. You're working on a class and don't know where to stick this and that function so you put it in your helper class. At which point your helpers don't communicate well what they do. The name 'helper' or 'util' itself in the class name doesn't mean anything. I think nearly all OO gurus advocate against helpers since you can very easily replace them with more descriptive classes if you give it enough thought. I tend to agree with this approach as I believe that helpers violate the single responsibility principle. Honestly, take this with a grain of salt. I'm a little opinionated on OOP :)

In these examples I would be more inclined to extend String:
class PhoneNumber extends String
{
public override string ToString()
{
// return (999) 999-9999
}
}
If you write down all the places you need these functions you can figure out what actually uses it and then add it to the appropriate class. That can sometimes be difficult but still something you should aim for.
EDIT:
As pointed out below, you cannot override String in C#. The point I was trying to make is that this operation is made on a phone number so that is where the function belongs:
interface PhoneNumber
{
string Formatted();
}
If you have different formats you can interchange implementations of PhoneNumber without littering your code with if statements, e.g.,
Instead of:
if(country == Countries.UK) output = Toolbox.PhoneNumberUK(phoneNumber);
else ph = Toolbox.PhoneNumberUS(phoneNumber);
You can just use:
output = phoneNumber.Formatted();

There is nothing wrong with this. One thing is try to break it up into logical parts. By doing this you can keep your intellisense clean.
MyCore.Extensions.Formatting.People
MyCore.Extensions.Formatting.Xml
MyCore.Extensions.Formatting.Html

My experience has been that utility functions seldom occur in isolation. If you need a method for formatting telephone numbers, then you will also need one for validating phone numbers, and parsing phone numbers. Following the YAGNI principle, you certainly wouldn't want to write such things until they're actually needed, but I think it's helpful to just go ahead and separate such functionality into individual classes. The growth of those classes from single methods into minor subsystems will then happen naturally over time. I have found this to be the easiest way to keep the code organized, understandable, and maintainable over the long term.

When I create an application, I typically create a static class that contains static methods and properties that I can't figure out where to put anywhere else.
It's not an especially good design, but that's sort of the point: it gives me a place to localize a whole class of design decisions that I haven't thought out yet. Generally as the application grows and is refined through refactoring, it becomes clearer where these methods and properties actually ought to reside. Mercifully, the state of refactoring tools is such that those changes are usually not exceptionally painful to make.
I've tried doing it the other way, but the other way is basically implementing an object model before I know enough about my application to design the object model properly. If I do that, I spend a fair amount of time and energy coming up with a mediocre solution that I have to revisit and rebuild from the ground up at some point in the future. Well, okay, if I know I'm going to be refactoring this code, how about I skip the step of designing and building the unnecessarily complicated classes that don't really work?
For instance, I've built an application that is being used by multiple customers. I figured out pretty early on that I needed to have a way of separating out methods that need to work differently for different customers. I built a static utility method that I could call at any point in the program where I needed to call a customized method, and stuck it in my static class.
This worked fine for months. But there came a point at which it was just beginning to look ugly. And so I decided to refactor it out into its own class. And as I went through my code looking at all the places where this method was being called, it became extremely clear that all of the customized methods really needed to be members of an abstract class, the customers' assemblies needed to contain a single derived class that implements all of the abstract methods, and then the program just needed to get the name of the assembly and the namespace out of its configuration and create an instance of the custom features class at startup. It was really simple for me to find all of the methods that had to be customized, since all I needed to do was find every place that my load-a-custom-feature method was being called. It took me the better part of an afternoon to go through the entire codebase and rationalize this design, and the end result is really flexible and robust and solves the right problem.
The thing is, when I first implemented that method (actually it was three or four interrelated methods), I recognized that it wasn't the right answer. But I didn't know enough to decide what the right answer was. So I went with the simplest wrong answer until the right answer became clear.

I think the reason it's frowned upon is because the "toolbox" can grow and you will be loading a ton of resources every time you want to call a single function.
It's also more elegant to have the methods that apply to the objects in the actual class - just makes more sense.
That being said, I personally don't think it's a problem, but would avoid it simply for the reasons above.

I posted a comment, but thought I'd elaborate a bit more.
What I do is create a Common library with namespaces: [Organisation].[Product].Common as the root and a sub namespace Helpers.
A few people on here mention things like creating a class and shoving some stuff they don't know where else to put in there. Wrong. I'd say, even if you need one helper method, it is related to something, so create a properly named (IoHelper, StringHelper, etc.) static helper class and put it in the Helpers namespace. That way, you get some structure and you get some sort of separation of concerns.
In the root namespace, you can use instance utility classes that do require state (they exist!). And needless to say also use an appropriate class name, but don't suffix with Helper.