When you should embrace MFEs.

Since some time ago, there has been growing criticism towards Microfrontends (MFEs) with the assertion that "if Microfrontends are needed, it's due to organizational problems."

I think this statement holds some truth as it is indeed related to organizational challenges. However, in these situations, the code must be adapted to address these issues effectively.

In this lecture, I aim to guide you through:

• When Microfrontends are neccessary
• The problems Microfrontends solve
• Unmask the myth that Microfrontends are harmful
• The challenges that accompany Microfrontends

• From a Small Project to a Behemoth
  • The First Challenge: Scaling the Team
  • The Second Challenge: Budget Constraints
  • The Third Challenge: Framework Limitations
  • The Current State of the Project
• MFEs: A Potential Solution
  • Defining Roles
  • Module Federation
  • Web Components
• Emerging Challenges
  • Normalization
  • Bundle?
  • Contractual Coordination
  • Routing Considerations
• Wrapping it up
• Interesting Links

From a Small Project to a Behemoth

When a project begins, it is typically small, manageable, and easy to collaborate.

In the case of a small Single Page Application (SPA), a modulith architecture often provides an efficient and quick solution for web needs.

The team, around 5-10 people, are able to work together, coordinate, have nice DX and develop and maintain features without any problem.

Let's say, the project is a huge seller, it's the golden goose of the company, attracting significant attention.

The First Challenge: Scaling the Team

As the company invests more in the project, seeking to enhance its speed, power, and scope, they increase the team's size. Soon, 20 to 30 people are working on it.

Collaboration becomes more challenging, leading to the team dividing into smaller groups of about 10 people, each focusing on different modules or domains of the SPA. Despite this, it remains a monorepo SPA.

This growth introduces bureaucratic hurdles. Every new feature or library addition impacting the entire ecosystem requires alignment with all teams.

The Second Challenge: Budget Constraints

Over time, some sections of the website gain more popularity or importance, leading to a reallocation of resources and reshuffling of teams. This results in uneven development capabilities across different groups.

Time keeps passing and your favorite framework (Angular❤️) has released a new shining version that brings a lot of interesting features to the table. Some of the teams are eager to upgrade inmediately, because the new control flow syntax it's amazing, but, others lack the resources required to migrate in that moment and can not afford the breaking changes and adapt their code.

The Third Challenge: Framework Limitations

When the product continues to be successful, the company will want to hire more people, invest more resources and make it even bigger, but they find a shocking surprise:

❗They cannot find more Angular developers❗. The company already contains a lot of them, but there are not enough developers in the market, and even less with strong skills in Angular.

Hiring developers from other frameworks and training them poses a significant financial burden.

The Current State of the Project

Now the project is in a tight spot, although the client that uses the application does not feel any of these problems, thanks to modulith, the efficiency of the website keeps feeling contingent, but, our DX is getting worse and worse.

The codebase has grown enormous, leading to long build and deploy times, and local development becoming increasingly painful.

MFEs: A Potential Solution

Defining Roles

After all the problems we have discussed, let's now introduce our hero of the day. Microfrontends.

Let's apply MFEs to the SPA we have been talking about. The first step is to designate the Shell and the others MFEs.

The Shell will handle common functionalities across the application, including authentication, relieving the MFEs of these concerns.

Each team, previously working on a specific module or section, now oversees an individual MFE.

This leads to splitting our SPA monorepo into multiple repositories, one for the Shell and others for each MFE. Each now operates as a separate application with its own deployment and build processes.

Module Federation

Now we can integrate Webpack Module Federation, for example with the library of AngularArchitects.io

At this stage, we have already solved:

• Team Scalability: Teams can work independently, reducing conflict risks.
• Framework Flexibility: Adoption of different frameworks (e.g., React) becomes feasible within teams.

But what about budget constraints?

Web Components

Web components allows us to encapsulate even further our Microfrontends, solving the existing problems with pure MFEs about conflicts in namespace, css and dependencies.

This allows for different Angular versions within the Shell and various MFEs.
For example, the Shell might run Angular 17, while a budget-constrained MFE continues on Angular 15, yet they still function cohesively and they can communicate with each other through Web Component using Inputs and Outputs (Outputs transformed to CustomEvent by itself) or a whole own implementation for communication purposes based on custom events.

Emerging Challenges

Despite its advantages, this new ecosystem introduces its own set of challenges.

Normalization

Now we have so many separate artifacts (Shell and MFEs). Before in our SPA it was as easy as using a shared module, with this new context we cannot do that.
In order to still have normalization of UI components, styles and etc, we would need some libraries. We can develop libraries for normalization to be used in every single artifact.

Bundle?

Now our bundles are smaller, but we have a new problem. The bundle now depends on versioning, and Web Components can increase it significantly. If we have a happy path and every single artifact is Angular 17, when the client enters the website, it will load the Shell and the bundles for Angular 17, the users navigates and everytime it loads a MFEs, if using Angular 17, they will just reuse the already download bundle.

Now let's see another reality, where we have the Shell and four MFEs in Angular 17, another two MFEs in Angular 16, and three in Angular 15. What will happen when the user keeps navigating through those MFEs is that it will download the bundles for each Angular, ** increasing the usage of resources in the client.**

Contractual Coordination

Another thing to keep in mind are the contracts. Now the Shell and MFEs will communicate mainly through Inputs and Outputs, and those are separated in the Shell and MFE, so they have to be very well-defined. This could be helped with shared libraries.

Routing Considerations

The browser of our client has only one url sadly, so this means that it should always be delineated as what is being shown on the screen. If we go to a scenario where we have two MFEs loaded at the same time, and both of them have routing, they will navigate internally but will also modify and replace the url, so now it could be different from what is being shown in the other MFE.

Wrapping it up

In conclusion, MFEs can be an excellent solution to solve a vast amount of issues that are not necessarily because of the lack of organization or planning, but because of the nature of the product itself.

Although, there are always new challenges to be solved when working in this ecosystem. In my opinion, for big projects, this solution is mandatory and new challenges can be solved with robust and thoughtful architecture.

I hope you have enjoyed reading this lecture (my very first article ^^) and that it was useful for you, for any question you might have, you can contact me in any of my linked social media. Thank you!

Also especial thanks to MikeZks for helping me polishing the article.

Interesting Links

• Report of Architects.io about MFEs and its usage
• How to use Module Federation
• Banner by Emily Alvin