I have 2 projects.
Project#2 has a reference to Project#1
Now I need to reference Project#2 in Project#1, but vs.net is complaining about a circular dependency.
Is there a way out of this?
+3
A:
No. Structure your projects properly. Try using some sort of ordering based on abstraction - low-level to high-level.
wj32
2010-01-12 21:37:41
+3
A:
This points to a problem in your design. If there is a genuine need for two or more of your types to be mutually aware then they should exist in the same assembly.
AdamRalph
2010-01-12 21:37:48
+3
A:
Refactor your projects to take the common elements out into a "Project #0" which both Project #1 and Project #2 reference.
codekaizen
2010-01-12 21:37:57
+2
A:
I really don't mean to be a smart-aleck, but better program design is the answer.
David Stratton
2010-01-12 21:37:58
+1
A:
A circular dependency means that these are no longer two independent projects (because there it is impossible to build only one of them).
You need to either refactor so that you have only a one way dependency or you should merge them into a single project.
R Samuel Klatchko
2010-01-12 21:39:21
+11
A:
Absolutely not. Circular dependencies are a indication of bad design. I don't mean to be harsh. There are some ways out of this.
1) You can refactor common code to another project, say Project#0
2) You can fix your design, which is probably the way to go.
Uncle Bob has a good article on Packaging Principles which includes the Acyclic Dependencies Principle. http://www.objectmentor.com/resources/articles/granularity.pdf. Read this to know why cyclic dependencies are a bad thing.
Craig Wilson
2010-01-12 21:41:42
A common fix is to depend on abstractions such as interfaces rather than concrete instances, and to move those abstractions to another assembly. But, really, think about your project structure and what really belongs where.
kyoryu
2010-02-14 20:42:53
A:
Circular reference can be done as seen in a previous question, but you should not do it for the reasons everybody already stated here.
Alfred Myers
2010-01-12 22:30:07
A:
This seems to be a design flaw, nothing else. Re-design is the solution.
Amit
2010-01-13 05:11:42