circular-dependency

I need to know why we need to avoid circular dependencies? In the real world if we think, circular dependencies are pretty much important. Like one friend needs something from other friend and the other needs something from this friend, so its kind of circular right? Then why is circular dependency a bad design? If we really need to avoid this then what is the best possible design in Object oriented world for such a situation? The problem with circular dependencies is rather like the chicken and egg problem. If you depend on me setting something up, and I depend on you setting something up,

I have two classes, Foo<T> and Bar , which depend on each other, as well as various other classes. I am using Dagger-2 for dependency injection, but if I naively add the circular dependency, Dagger hits a stack overflow at runtime. What's a good way to refactor the classes to fix this, while still using Dagger to inject all the other dependencies, and with minimal duplication and changes to existing calls? The easy way out is to use Lazy<T> on one side. Lazy<Foo> foo; @Inject Bar(Lazy<Foo> foo) { this.foo = foo; } // use foo.get(); when needed After an excessive amount of thought and talks

I want to know if there is a way to idiomatically avoid issues with circular dependencies with Node.js's require while using CoffeeScript classes and super . Given the following simplified CoffeeScript files: a.coffee: C = require './c' B = require './b' class A extends C b: B someMethod: -> super module.exports = A b.coffee: C = require './c' A = require './a' class B extends C a: A someMethod: -> super module.exports = B The first obvious issue here is that there is a circular dependency between A and B. Whichever one evaluates first will have {} as a reference to the other. To resolve this

Consider a testCycle parent with modules DummyCore and TestFramework . TestFramework depends on DummyCore , and DummyCore has a test dedepency on TestFramework . Building and testing each module independently maven has no problems. But mvn test the parents testCycle results in: The projects in the reactor contain a cyclic reference: Edge between 'Vertex{label='com.mysimpatico:TestFramework:1.0-SNAPSHOT'}' and 'Vertex{label='org.apache:DummyCore:1.0-SNAPSHOT'}' introduces to cycle in the graph org.apache:DummyCore:1.0-SNAPSHOT --> com.mysimpatico:TestFramework:1.0-SNAPSHOT --> org.apache

I am developing a travel management application. The design in question is something like following : Each person in a tour is designated as a Traveler. Each Traveler has a Passport. Now, a Traveler can be a MainMember or a SubMember, depending on whether or not he is the head of the family. A MainMember decides stuff like TourPackage, total amount for his travelling family, etc. A SubMember is dependent on the MainMember while travelling. So, if a MainMember is deleted, all its SubMembers have to be deleted as well. So, A Traveler has a Passport. (One to One relationship) A Traveler is either

Is there a way to have Two Lua modules (let's call them A and B ) Each module uses functions from the other, so they must require each other A third module (let's call it C ) can use A but not B e.g. C.lua : local A = require 'A' -- ... A.foo() There may be another module D that requires B but not A and/or E requiring both A and B Neither A nor B nor their members should be added to the global namespace. Avoid using the module and setfenv functions (deprecated in Lua 5.2) Related : Lua - how do I use one lib from another? (note: this solution does not handle circular dependencies.) I found

This question already has answers here : Resolve build errors due to circular dependency amongst classes (11 answers) I have this error: "error C4430: missing type specifier - int assumed. Note: C++ does not support default-int" with this code example : //A.h #include "B.h" class A{ B* b; .. }; //B.h #include "A.h" class B{ A* a; // error error C4430: missing type specifier - int assumed. }; This is a circular dependency issue. For declaring a pointer to some class, the definition of the class is not needed; i.e. the type doesn't have to be a complete type . So you don't need to include A.h in