Next steps
This guide covered architectural and organizational patterns, trade-offs for key decisions, and governance concerns related to micro-frontends. The tables summarize the trade-offs of practices discussed in this document in terms of the following dimensions:
-
Autonomy ‒ Each micro-frontend team's ability to independently evolve their implementation and release to end users.
-
Consistency ‒ The overall experience of the application where each micro-frontend behaves as expected. High consistency means micro-frontends are consistent with the rest of the application and are not detrimental to the user experience of the overall application.
-
Complexity ‒ The amount of infrastructure, code, and effort required to implement and test micro-frontends, the overall application, and governance controls.
Practice |
Autonomy |
Consistency |
Complexity |
|---|---|---|---|
Building with micro-frontends instead of monolithic applications |
High |
Medium |
High |
Code-sharing practices |
Autonomy |
Consistency |
Complexity |
|---|---|---|---|
Share nothing |
High |
Low |
Low |
Share cross-cutting concerns |
Medium |
High |
Medium |
Share business logic |
Low |
High |
Medium |
Share through libraries at build time |
Medium |
High |
Low |
Share at runtime |
High |
High |
High |
Micro-frontend discovery practices |
Autonomy |
Consistency |
Complexity |
|---|---|---|---|
Configure during application build |
Low |
High |
Low |
Server-side discovery |
High |
High |
Medium |
Client-side (runtime) discovery |
High |
High |
Medium |
View composition practices |
Autonomy |
Consistency |
Complexity |
|---|---|---|---|
Server-side composition |
High |
Medium |
High |
Edge-side composition |
Medium |
Medium |
High |
Client-side composition |
High |
Medium |
Medium |
To learn more about the concepts introduced in this guidance, see the Resources section.
