Microfrontends with single-spa

Microfrontends have become a popular architectural pattern in recent years. They allow you to break down a monolithic frontend application into smaller, more manageable pieces that can be developed and deployed independently. This can bring a lot of benefits to your development process, such as increased flexibility, faster development cycles, and better scaling options.

One of the best ways to implement microfrontends is with the use of single-spa. Single-spa is a framework for building microfrontends that allows you to compose multiple frontend applications into a single, cohesive user interface. In this article, we’ll take a closer look at why microfrontends with single-spa are a good solution.

Independent Development and Deployment One of the main advantages of microfrontends is that they allow you to develop and deploy each part of your application independently. With single-spa, you can compose multiple microfrontends into a single, cohesive user interface. Each microfrontend can be developed, tested, and deployed independently, without affecting the rest of the application. This makes it much easier to manage your codebase, as you can avoid the headaches of coordinating changes across multiple teams.
Faster Development Cycles With independent development and deployment, you can also speed up your development cycles. Each team can work on their own microfrontend without worrying about breaking the entire application. This means that you can release new features and updates much faster than with a monolithic application. This can give you a significant competitive advantage, as you can respond quickly to customer needs and market changes.
Better Scaling Options Another advantage of microfrontends is that they allow you to scale each part of your application independently. With single-spa, you can easily add or remove microfrontends as needed to meet changing demands. This can help you to avoid overprovisioning and save on infrastructure costs.
Better Reusability With microfrontends, you can also improve code reusability. Each microfrontend can be developed as a standalone application, which can be used in other parts of your application or even in other projects. This can save you time and effort when developing new features or applications.
Improved User Experience Finally, microfrontends with single-spa can provide a better user experience. With multiple microfrontends composing a single application, you can create a more dynamic and interactive user interface. This can help to improve user engagement and satisfaction.

In conclusion, microfrontends with single-spa are a good solution for modern web development. They allow you to break down a monolithic application into smaller, more manageable pieces that can be developed and deployed independently. This can bring a lot of benefits to your development process, such as increased flexibility, faster development cycles, and better scaling options. With single-spa, you can easily compose multiple microfrontends into a single, cohesive user interface, and take advantage of the benefits of microfrontends.

Advantages and disadvantages of using the Single-spa framework

Some advantages and disadvantages of using the Single-spa framework for building microfrontends:

Advantages:

Single-spa provides a comprehensive set of tools and libraries for building and deploying microfrontends, including a central hub and a set of APIs for managing state and communication.
It is technology-agnostic, which means that it can be used with any frontend framework or library, including React, Angular, Vue, and more.
Single-spa provides a flexible and modular architecture that allows you to easily add, remove, or replace microfrontends without affecting the rest of the application.
It is well-documented and has a large community of developers, which makes it easier to find support and resources.

Disadvantages:

Single-spa may have a steeper learning curve than other microfrontend frameworks, especially for developers who are not familiar with its lifecycle functions and APIs.
It may have some performance overhead due to the coordination of multiple microfrontends, which can impact the speed and responsiveness of the application.
Single-spa may require additional tooling and configuration, which can increase the complexity of the development and deployment process.
It may not be suitable for small or simple applications, as the overhead of setting up a microfrontend architecture may outweigh the benefits.

Several alternative frameworks for building microfrontends

There are several alternative frameworks for building microfrontends, each with its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Here are a few examples:

Web Components: Web Components are a set of standards for creating reusable components in web applications. They provide a way to encapsulate HTML, CSS, and JavaScript into a single, reusable unit that can be used in any web application. Web Components are supported natively by modern web browsers, and can also be polyfilled for older browsers.

Advantages:

Web Components can be used with any framework or library, and can be shared across multiple projects.
They are natively supported by modern web browsers, so they have good performance and accessibility.
They provide a standardized way to create and use components, which can reduce complexity and improve maintainability.

Disadvantages:

Web Components can be difficult to build and test, especially for complex components.
They do not provide a built-in way to manage state or communicate with other components, which can lead to issues with data flow and coordination.
They may require additional polyfills or libraries for older browsers, which can add complexity and reduce performance.

Module Federation: Module Federation is a new feature of Webpack 5 that allows you to share modules between different applications at runtime. It provides a way to build microfrontends that can communicate and share code without using a central hub or router.

Advantages:

Module Federation allows you to share code and state between microfrontends without the need for a central hub.
It can improve performance by reducing duplication of code and reducing the number of requests to the server.
It can reduce complexity by simplifying the architecture and reducing the number of moving parts.

Disadvantages:

Module Federation is a new and experimental feature, and may have some bugs or limitations.
It requires using Webpack as the build tool, which may not be suitable for all projects.
It does not provide a built-in way to manage state or communicate between microfrontends, which can lead to issues with data flow and coordination.

Piral: Piral is a microfrontend framework built on top of React, which provides a set of tools and libraries for building and deploying microfrontends. It provides a centralized hub for hosting and coordinating microfrontends, as well as a set of APIs for managing state and communicating between microfrontends.

Advantages:

Piral provides a complete framework for building and deploying microfrontends, including a centralized hub and a set of tools for managing state and communication.
It is built on top of React, so it has good performance and a large community of developers and libraries.
It provides a set of plugins and extensions that can be used to extend its functionality and integrate with other tools and services.

Disadvantages:

Piral is a new and relatively unknown framework, so it may have some bugs or limitations.
It requires using Piral’s tooling and conventions, which may not be suitable for all projects.
It may have a steeper learning curve than other frameworks, especially for developers who are not familiar with React.