Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
126 lines (78 loc) · 5.28 KB

decision-tree.md

File metadata and controls

126 lines (78 loc) · 5.28 KB

Decision Tree for Implementing Micro Frontends

When to use Micro Frontends?

  • Your architecture scale with multiple teams working on a single product simultaneously.
  • Medium-to-large projects
  • Old, large monolith needs to be rebuild
  • There are autonomous teams and existing good CI/CD pipelines

When not to use Micro Frontends?

  • Small projects
  • Single team working on a single product
  • Is not a clear bounded context defined
  • Just for fun and add more complexity

The following decision tree provides a structured approach to evaluating whether Micro Frontends are suitable for your project and guiding you through key considerations during implementation.

1. Project Scope and Team Structure

Are different teams working on different parts of the frontend?

  • Yes: Consider Micro Frontends for independent development and deployment.
  • No: Stick with a Monolithic Frontend unless other benefits of Micro Frontends are crucial.

2. Granularity

Do you need to split by business domain (e.g., product, checkout, user management)?

  • Yes: Use Vertical Split.
  • No: Evaluate other criteria.

3. Integration Approach

Do you require build-time integration for shared resources?

  • Yes: Consider Build-time Integration using tools like Module Federation (Webpack 5).
  • No: Proceed to runtime considerations.

4. Runtime Integration

Do you need runtime flexibility and independent deployments?

  • Yes: Use Run-time Integration. Choose between:
    • Client-side Integration (e.g., Single-SPA)
    • Server-side Integration (e.g., Edge Side Includes - ESI)
  • No: Build-time integration might suffice.

5. Framework and Tool Selection

Do you have a preferred JavaScript framework?

  • Yes: Ensure the chosen framework is compatible with tools like Single-SPA or Module Federation.

  • No: Evaluate the following

    • Single-SPA for a framework-agnostic solution.
    • Module Federation (Webpack 5) for robust module sharing.

6. Communication Between Micro Frontends

Is shared state or global communication required?

  • Yes: Implement Shared State Management using tools like Redux or Context API.
  • No: Use Custom Events for loose coupling.

7. Deployment Strategy

Do you need independent deployment pipelines?

  • Yes: Implement Independent Deployment with separate CI/CD pipelines.
  • No: Use a Monolithic Deployment pipeline with versioning and coordinated releases.

8. Performance Considerations

Is performance a critical concern?

  • Yes: Optimize with Lazy Loading, Code Splitting, and effective Caching strategies.
  • No: Standard optimization techniques can be applied as needed.

9. Security Requirements

Do you have specific security constraints (e.g., CORS, authentication)?

  • Yes: Ensure proper CORS Configuration, implement robust Authentication and Authorization mechanisms.
  • No: Apply general security best practices.

Detailed Decision Points

Project Scope and Team Structure

  • Independent Teams: If multiple teams are responsible for different sections of the frontend, Micro Frontends enable them to work autonomously and deploy independently. Single Team: If one team handles the entire frontend, the complexity of Micro Frontends might outweigh the benefits.

Granularity

  • Vertical Split: Suitable when dividing by business domain, allowing each domain to be developed, deployed, and scaled independently.
  • Horizontal Split: Consider for technical capabilities or page sections, such as header, footer, or feature flags.

Integration Approach

  • Build-time Integration: Suitable when you need tight coupling and shared resources at build time. Tools like Webpack’s Module Federation allow different parts to share code seamlessly.
  • Run-time Integration: Best for highly dynamic applications where parts need to be integrated at runtime, offering greater flexibility and independent deployments.

Framework and Tool Selection

  • Single-SPA: A versatile framework that supports various JavaScript libraries and frameworks, allowing multiple frameworks to coexist in a single application.
  • Module Federation: Allows dynamic imports and shared modules, promoting reusability and reducing duplication.

Communication Between Micro Frontends

  • Shared State Management: For applications requiring a unified state across micro frontends, use state management libraries.
  • Custom Events: For more decoupled communication, custom events provide a lightweight method for interaction.

Deployment Strategy

  • Independent Deployment: Each Micro Frontend can be developed and deployed separately, enabling quicker releases and isolated updates.
  • Monolithic Deployment: A coordinated approach where all parts are deployed together, suitable for tightly coupled frontends.

Performance Considerations

  • Lazy Loading: Load components only when needed to improve initial load times.
  • Code Splitting: Split code into smaller bundles to optimize load times and performance.
  • Caching: Implement effective caching strategies to reduce load times and improve user experience. Security Requirements
  • CORS: Properly configure Cross-Origin Resource Sharing for secure communication between different origins. Authentication/Authorization: Ensure secure user authentication and authorization mechanisms across all Micro Frontends.