Managing Dependency Chaos in Your Code
Every developer at least once experienced tangled code where responsibilities are mixed, and even a small change feels risky and painful to make.
What should be a simple modification turns into a chain reaction. You touch one class, three others break. The kind of complexity comes from uncontrolled dependencies pointing in every direction.
Uncontrolled dependencies often don’t stay linear — they quietly turn into circles. At first, everything seems fine, but if you start tracing who depends on whom, you suddenly find yourself back where you started. That’s usually a sign the design has drifted, and boundaries are no longer clear.
Circular dependencies are a problem because they tightly couple components, making them hard to understand, test, reuse, or change independently. They break modularity, increase cognitive load, and most importantly, they signal unclear responsibilities and weak architectural boundaries — and that pain only grows as the system scales.
Therefore, according to The Acyclic Dependencies Principle, the dependency graph must have no cycles. It is preferable for dependencies to be pointed out in the form of an acyclic graph or even a tree (ideally, but unlikely)
The rule applies regardless of scale — whether you’re dealing with individual classes, projects within a monolith, or even microservices.
A circular dependency between two small classes is a design smell that can cause runtime issues (especially with DI containers); the same anti-pattern between projects can block builds; and between microservices, it can create tight coupling at the system level. The size changes, but the architectural damage follows the same pattern.
There is also some good news 🙃. Both the problem and the solution have been known for a long time. For example, traditional N-layered architecture was designed specifically to enforce clear, one-directional dependencies between components.
However, as time goes on, the structure becomes unstable and starts to sprawl. A few messy dependencies, and you have cycles. Once they appear, you can’t ignore them. Cycles must be broken to restore clarity and stability. Fortunately, no matter the situation, there are always ways to deal with them 😉.
Cycle-Breaking Techniques
When you face cycles in a system across multiple components, it may look overwhelming at first.
However, you don’t need to solve everything at once. Just pick any dependency, and eliminate a cycle there.
All cycle-breaking strategies come down to one of these moves:
- change direction of dependency (Dependency Inversion)
- restructure logic
- decouple the system with events
Each of them changes how responsibilities and dependencies are arranged in the system, so the dependency graph becomes acyclic again.
Let’s see it in practice, with the simplest case: a cycle formed by two components that directly reference each other.
In this example, OrderService depends on PaymentService, and PaymentService depends on OrderService. Each service calls the other to complete its work, which creates a circular dependency.
public class OrderService(PaymentService _paymentService)
{
public void CreateOrder(Order order)
{
_paymentService.ProcessPayment(order.Id);
}
public void MarkAsPaid(Guid orderId)
{
Console.WriteLine("Order marked as paid");
}
}
public class PaymentService(OrderService _orderService)
{
public void ProcessPayment(Guid orderId)
{
Console.WriteLine("Payment processed");
_orderService.MarkAsPaid(orderId);
}
}This is the smallest possible cycle, but if you learn how to break the dependency here, the same techniques can be applied to much larger dependency graphs.
In practice, complex cycles are usually just combinations of many small cycles like this.
— Dependency Inversion
One way to break a cycle is to revert a dependency on an interface rather than on an implementation, by applying the Dependency Inversion principle.
Instead of PaymentService depending on concrete OrderService, it depends on an abstraction (IOrderUpdater). This way, all the dependencies crossing the boundaries are pointing in the same direction.
The interface represents the behavior PaymentService actually needs. Instead of referencing the entire OrderService, the dependency is narrowed to just the operation required to update the order state.
public class OrderService(PaymentService _paymentService)
: IOrderUpdater // 👈
{
public void CreateOrder(Order order)
{
_paymentService.ProcessPayment(order.Id);
}
public void MarkAsPaid(Guid orderId)
{
Console.WriteLine("Order marked as paid");
}
}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
public interface IOrderUpdater
{
void MarkAsPaid(Guid orderId);
}
public class PaymentService(IOrderUpdater _orderUpdater) // 👈
{
public void ProcessPayment(Guid orderId)
{
Console.WriteLine("Payment processed");
_orderUpdater.MarkAsPaid(orderId);
}
}After this change, PaymentService no longer knows about OrderService directly. It only interacts with the IOrderUpdater abstraction. OrderService provides the implementation, but the dependency is now inverted, which removes the direct cycle between the two components.
— Restructure Logic
Circular dependencies are almost always a red flag. It is often a signal that responsibilities are misplaced.
Get iamprovidence’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
In that case, the solution is often to reorganize the code in one of the following ways.
- merge responsibilities into a single component
If two components constantly call each other, they may actually represent one cohesive responsibility that was artificially split. Instead of forcing them to collaborate through a back-and-forth dependency, it can be simpler to combine them into a single component.
This approach works well when the logic naturally belongs to one use case. By merging components, the control flow becomes explicit and easier to reason about.
public class CheckoutService
{
. . .
public async Task Checkout(CreateOrderRequest request)
{
var order = Order.Create(request.Items);
var paymentResult = await _paymentGateway.Charge(request.PaymentDetails, order.Total);
order.MarkAsPaid();
await _orderRepository.Save(order);
}
}- consolidating responsibility in one of the components
In case the services are truly independent and cannot be merged, but you still have a cycle, this can mean that their responsibilities were chosen poorly.
In such cases, the simplest solution is to move the relevant logic into a single component and make it responsible for the entire operation.
Here, the responsibility for the process is consolidated in OrderService. It creates the order, triggers the payment, and completes the workflow by marking the order as paid.
PaymentService only performs its core task—processing the payment—without knowing anything about orders.
public class OrderService(PaymentService _paymentService)
{
public void CreateOrder(Order order)
{
_paymentService.ProcessPayment(order.Id);
MarkAsPaid();
}
}
public class PaymentService
{
public void ProcessPayment(Guid orderId)
{
Console.WriteLine("Payment processed");
}
}By clarifying ownership of the workflow, the dependency becomes one-directional, and the cycle disappears.
- introducing a new shared component
You may find that the functionality doesn’t naturally belong to either service.
It would be a good idea to extract the shared logic into a separate component. Both services can then use this new component independently, removing the direct dependency between them.
The shared component handles the cross-cutting functionality (MarkAsPaid), so OrderService and PaymentService no longer depend directly on each other:
public class OrderService(
PaymentService _paymentService,
OrderStateManager _orderStateManager)
{
public void CreateOrder(Order order)
{
_paymentService.ProcessPayment(order.Id);
_orderStateManager.MarkAsPaid(order.Id);
}
}
public class PaymentService
{
public void ProcessPayment(Guid orderId)
{
Console.WriteLine("Payment processed");
}
}
// Shared component handling Order state logic
public class OrderStateManager(IOrderRepository _orderRepository)
{
public void MarkAsPaid(Guid orderId)
{
var order = _orderRepository.Get(orderId);
order.MarkAsPaid();
_orderRepository.Save(order);
}
}- introduce the coordinator component
Sometimes a cycle appears because the domain logic is anemic, and services at the same layer end up coordinating behavior between themselves.
Instead of services calling each other, you can introduce an orchestrator above them, usually in an upper layer, such as the Application layer.
This component becomes responsible for sequencing the operations while the lower-level services focus only on their specific tasks.
public class OrderApplicationService(
OrderService _orderService,
PaymentService _paymentService)
{
public void Handle(CreateOrderRequest request)
{
_orderService.CreateOrder(request.Order);
_paymentService.ProcessPayment(request.Order.Id);
_orderService.MarkAsPaid(request.Order.Id);
}
}- push the behavior to a deeper layer
Rather than introducing a component above them, some of the work can be pushed down to deeper layers, such as the domain model or infrastructure utilities.
When the domain object owns the rule, services no longer need to coordinate back and forth, and the cycle disappears.
public class OrderService(PaymentService _paymentService)
{
public void CreateOrder(Order order)
{
_paymentService.ProcessPayment(order);
}
}
public class PaymentService
{
public void ProcessPayment(Order order)
{
Console.WriteLine("Payment processed");
order.MarkAsPaid();
}
}
class Order
{
. . .
public bool IsPaid { get; private set; }
public void MarkAsPaid()
{
IsPaid = true;
}
}— decouple the system with events
Another strong solution to reduce coupling and break direct dependencies between components is to communicate through events.
Instead of calling each other directly, services publish events describing what happened, and other components react to those events. This removes the need for services to reference each other.
In this approach, components depend only on an event bus and the event contracts, not on each other’s implementations.
public record OrderCreatedEvent(Guid OrderId);
public record PaymentProcessedEvent(Guid OrderId);
public class OrderService(IEventBus _eventBus): IEventHandler<PaymentProcessedEvent>
{
public void CreateOrder(Order order)
{
Console.WriteLine("Create order");
_eventBus.Publish(new OrderCreatedEvent(orderId));
}
public void Handle(PaymentProcessedEvent e)
{
Console.WriteLine("Order marked as paid");
}
}
public class PaymentService(IEventBus _eventBus) : IEventHandler<OrderCreatedEvent>
{
public void Handle(OrderCreatedEvent e)
{
Console.WriteLine("Payment processed");
_eventBus.Publish(new PaymentProcessedEvent(orderId));
}
}Notice that the services no longer depend on each other. However, it is important to remember that logical cycles can still exist in event-driven systems. One event may trigger another, which eventually leads back to the original component, creating an infinite loop of publishes and handlers.
Summary
In a system with many components, it is inevitable for one to depend on another. Managing those dependencies helps to shape the structure of the system and determine how easy it is to maintain the code.
- Uncontrolled references between components gradually turn a system into a tangled structure where dependencies point in every direction.
- Mixed responsibilities often create cycles, where a change in one component triggers a cascade of changes in another.
- Cycles tightly couple components, making systems harder to understand, test, and change.
- The core goal is to restore one-directional dependencies so the architecture forms an acyclic graph.
- Most solutions fall into three categories: dependency inversion, restructuring responsibilities, or decoupling with events.
- Large cycles can often be fixed simply by resolving a single misplaced dependency.
Give this article a clap or a few if you like it 👏
You can support me with a link below ☕️
And don’t forget to follow ✅
