cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

pseodo Circular dependency between SCs

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hello

Please consider the following scenerio:

We have 2 SCs, and each of them has its own track

to simplify and generalize things:

SC1 contains 2 DCS -

- EJB DC (EJB1)

- Portal DC (PAR1) (uses EJB1)

SC2 also contains 2 DCS -

- EJB DC (EJB2)

- Portal DC (PAR2) (use EJB2)

so far SC1 and SC2 are completely independent.

Now assume PAR1 needs to invoke some methods from EJB2.

so now SC1 is dependent on SC2 (and you need to configure the tracks accordingly).

so far so good.

Now, assume PAR2 needs to invoke some methods from EJB1.

this means SC2 is dependent on SC1 but also

remember that SC1 is dependent on SC2

From the scope of SCs, there is a circular dependency here, but from the scope of DCs, there is no circular dependency...

- Does NWDI support such a case?

- Is it OK to configure track connections between both tracks?

- should I consider developing both SCs at the same track to avoid those issues?

- should I concider splitting each of the SCs,

and then I will have 4 SC, and no circular dependency?

- can you think of another alternative?

Thank you

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (1)

Answers (1)

sid-desh
Advisor
Advisor
0 Kudos

Hi Zach,

I am not sure about the circular dependency thing, however i would definitely suggest that you try developing everything under one SC. That would keep the things simple.

Regards

Sidharth

former_member183805
Active Participant
0 Kudos

Hi Zach,

No, circular dependencies between SCs are not allowed. If you run into such a situation, it is a strong indication that you need to refactor your SC structure. (Either place all of them in the same SC, or place the two EJBs in one SC and the two PARs in another SC which uses the first one).

Also, why are your two SCs in two different tracks? This would make sense if the SCs have different release cycles or are in two unrelated products - if this is not the case, you must consider putting them into the same track.

Regards,

Manohar