So I was wondering today, where would you put utility classes in an ASP.NET MVC app? By utility classes I mean classes that can be static and are just used to perform a function. Like a class to send an email that takes email address , subject, and body as arguments.
I would assume maybe creating a separate folder and namespace would be good enough, but wanted to get everyone opinions

  • 3
    Why would create utility classes in any type of project? Why is MVC singled out in your question?
    – Oded
    Sep 10, 2013 at 12:19
  • 2
    Well I was wondering about MVC because it in a way forces structure. And as far as utility, I was under the impression everyone used them :) If I have an email sender code, and I split it into it's separate class to work with various parts of the system, isn't that a utility class or am I confused? I thought utility classes were once reusable in any program that aren't tied into the code
    – user60812
    Sep 10, 2013 at 12:28
  • I would personally consider email sending a service, abstracted by say the interface IUserNotificationSender or so.. with proper error handling, smtp config etc that doesn't really fit in a utility function...
    – Max
    Sep 10, 2013 at 12:30
  • @Max so what would be considered a utility function? I'm trying to understand, as it seems to me I'm very confused
    – user60812
    Sep 10, 2013 at 12:36
  • Well, a proper utility function in my mind is a very small function with a very defined scope and no external dependencies... Such as a function to remove whitespace, or trim a string, or get the nth element of a collection...
    – Max
    Sep 10, 2013 at 12:42

4 Answers 4


You don't. And your own example is a perfect one to show why not.

You want to send emails, right? So you create somewhere a static class CommunicationUtilities with a static SendEmail() in it. You use this method from some class which does a bunch of stuff, , for example resets the password of a user and sends him a new one by email. Perfect.

Now, what happens if you want to unit-test your class? You can't, because every time you want to test the method which resets the password, it changes the database (which is not suitable for a unit test), and moreover sends an email (which is even worse).

You may have read about Inversion of Control, which has a benefit of making unit testing easier. Articles about IoC will explain you that instead of doing something like:

void ResetPassword(UserIdentifier userId)
    new MailSender().SendPasswordReset(userMail, newPassword);

you do:

void ResetPassword(IMailSender sender, UserIdentifier userId)
    sender.SendPasswordReset(userMail, newPassword);

which allows to use mocks and stubs.

Try to apply IoC to your CommunicationUtilities. Right, you can't. That's why it's broken.

  • Hi MainMa, so if I understand correctly it's proper to still make a say background class with all the piping, and then abstract it with an interface, and pass the interface to the function instead of straight calling from the class as in your first snippet.
    – user60812
    Sep 10, 2013 at 12:39
  • 1
    @user60812: in short, read about IoC. It would be difficult to explain the whole subject in a simple comment. Sep 10, 2013 at 12:44
  • 1
    What about a truly generic utility function, like a string truncator?
    – jbyrd
    Oct 16, 2015 at 19:01
  • 2
    @MainMa - sorry, I don't follow. That's along the lines of what I want, yes. But Truncate() isn't built into c#, so I was wondering if it would make sense to stick that kind of generic utility function in some sort of utilities class.
    – jbyrd
    Oct 16, 2015 at 21:16
  • 2
    This answer defines away the problem by noting that in this particular case no util class is necessary. But in general there are always some "helper" style methods that don't fit anywhere.
    – usr
    Mar 15, 2016 at 14:56

The question is a valid one, even if the example given is not. The answer given by Maina is perfect, in a very specific context, which is not to me, the proper context for said "utility" classes.

Personally, I create a folder Helpers in which I put simple functions to be called from about anywhere, like extensions, in which case, yes, they are static.

Now, if there is a better way, I will be glad to learn, but so far:

  • I see nothing wrong with Extensions.
  • I see nothing wrong with grouping them in a specific Folder.

Now, an extension is just syntaxic sugar, it could as well be a classic function.


None of the answers previously given address the actual question. user60812 simply asked where one would place a utility class inside of an MVC project. Everyone harked on the singular example and ranted about everything except the question at hand.

@user60812, depending on the level of abstraction you want, I would:

  • A) Create a folder and create the utility class within that folder
  • B) Create a project to hold the utility classes (assuming the desire for assembly reuse).
  • C) Extrapolate your utilities into a service architecture and call out to them

Here is a link to a similar question with better answers.



Don't create static classes for utilities. Statics are bad in most cases. Don't call them managers either. Whatever it is you are working on, it should be placed in a logical namespace.

For example:

namespace Application.Notifications.Email
   public interface ISendEmailCommand
      void Execute(Email email);

Email address, subject and body is a separate concern, therefore I would have a class structure for that, hence why I've used Email email in example above.

  • Please explain why Static classes are bad to hold utility methods? I am genuinely curious as to your reasoning. Dec 17, 2019 at 17:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.