Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 9223341
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: June 18, 20262026-06-18T04:03:21+00:00 2026-06-18T04:03:21+00:00

I have the following situation. We are woring on a multilayered application, so I

  • 0

I have the following situation. We are woring on a multilayered application, so I made different assemblies for each layer. Lets call them Top, Middle and Base. They are dependend like:

Top->Middle->Base, because Top uses clases from Middle and Middle from base.

Now we will have a secong Applikation Top2 that only needs some classes from Middle that don’t use anything from Base.

Is there a way, to not include Base in the deployment of Top2?

WHen trying to complie, VS tells me that I need also the reference to assembly Base.

Best
Thomas

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-06-18T04:03:22+00:00Added an answer on June 18, 2026 at 4:03 am

    Sounds like “Middle” is getting a bit big for its boots.

    An assembly shouldn’t reference anything that it doesn’t need. So therefore your situation sounds like a good candidate for splitting the assembly.

    Current

    Application One -> "Middle.dll" -> "Base.dll"
    

    Your Proposal

    Application One -> "Middle.dll" -> "Base.dll"
    
    Application Two -> "Middle.dll" -> "(Redundant) Base.dll"
    

    This is a typical issue which comes up when some really commonly used objects are essentially lumped with business logic unneccesserily. i.e. you might have utility classes in Middle.dll which are useful to applications, but they don’t really need to be in there. You might be better with a seperate utilities dll.

    Suggestion

    Application One -> "Middle1.dll" -> "Base.dll"
                    -> "Middle2.dll"
    
    Application Two -> "Middle2.dll"
    

    All of the functionality that needs to use Base.dll, which currently exists in Middle.dll, should be moved to Middle1.dll. That way if you only need to use the non dependant code, you can just reference Middle2.dll

    It might be a big refactor, dependant on your codebase, but later on down the line you will appreciate it!

    Benefits to this

    • Testing is going to be improved.
    • If you ever need to make these two applications totally separate, you would have less refactoring to do.
    • Less chance of breaking both applications if you only need to change “Middle1” for some reason
    • Cleaner seperation of concerns
    • No compiler problem like you currently have
    • No lumping code not required for a program with every program
    • Smaller, more manageable assemblies
    • Improved intellisense
    • Middle1 and Middle2 can share the same namespace, so to your Applications they won’t know the difference.

    Note: Obviously I’m not suggesting that you should call them Middle1 and Middle2. But you get the idea.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

i have the following situation, i have a Reporting layer(stand alone) in asp.net application(NOT
I have following situation: I'm developing an address-application to store the details of our
I have the following situation main() { hnd = CreateTHread( func1 ); // Call
i have the following situation. I am developing a MVC 3 asp.net application. I
I have following situation in a C# Windows Forms (.NET 4.0) application: I have
We have the following situation: There is an application that works on Apache and
I have the following situation. From an application located in https://subdomain.mydomain.com I am trying
I`m currently working on a script, and I have the following situation. function somnicefunction()
Imagine the following situation: I have two branches: DEV and MAIN. I'm working on
I have following situation - Have a MongoService class, which reads host, port, database

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.