📦 Ways of Organize Web Modules in Browser
No silver bullet, but the right tool for the right job.
Brief Intro.
In this article we shall compare several ways of module organization technologies in one article and provide insights for picking the right way to solve your problem in your context, especially concerned with Micro-Front-ends or Micro-modules loading, resolving and running.
In general, there are server main-stream way to organize modules in web-browser:
npm- package and lib level. NPM is a package manager for JavaScript that allows developers to easily install, share, and manage dependencies in their projects, facilitating the organization of web modules and promoting code reuse across different applications.umd- remote bundle load. UMD is a universal module definition that allows scripts to be loaded in various environments, enabling compatibility with both CommonJS and AMD module systems, as well as global variables in the browser.esm- import in browser. ESM is a modern JavaScript module system that allows developers to use the `import` and `export` syntax directly in the browser, enabling cleaner and more efficient code organization.module-federation-webpackpowered. MF is a powerful technique that enables multiple web applications to share and load code dynamically at runtime, allowing for greater flexibility and scalability in building modern web architectures.
We shall compare the different technologies available for organizing web modules in the browser, highlighting their unique features, benefits, and ideal use cases to help developers make informed decisions.
Features / Pros / Cons compare
Use the following technologies to implement Micro FrontEnds patterns:
| Dimension / Methods | NPM | UMD | ESM | MF (Module Federation) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Code-split strategy | ✅ Supports code splitting via tools like Webpack or Rollup. | 😈 Limited support; typically bundles everything. | ✅ Supports dynamic imports for code splitting. | ✨ Excellent support for dynamic code splitting at runtime. |
| Cross-project code share mechanism | ✅ Allows sharing of packages across projects via npm registry. | 😈 Can share scripts across projects but requires manual management. | ✅ Can share modules via imports, but limited to same-origin. | ✨ Built-in support for sharing modules between different applications. |
Low-level dependency management (e.g., shared react / lodash) | ✅ Manages dependencies through package.json; can share versions. | 🤡 No built-in dependency management; relies on global scope. | ✅ Supports import/export, but dependencies must be managed manually. | ✨ Automatically shares dependencies and resolves conflicts at runtime. |
| Code-cache level | ✅ Caches installed packages locally; can be shared across projects. | 🤡 No caching; scripts are loaded fresh each time unless cached by the browser. | ✅ Caches modules in the browser, improving load times on subsequent requests. | ✨ Caches shared modules, reducing load times for shared dependencies. |
Type system (*.d.ts) | ✅ Supports TypeScript definitions via DefinitelyTyped or local .d.ts files. | 🤡 No built-in type support; relies on global variable typing. | ✅ Supports TypeScript natively with module imports. | 😈 Can work with TypeScript, but type definitions must be managed manually. |
| Loader mechanism | ✅ Requires a build step (e.g., Webpack) to bundle modules. | 🤩🤩 Loads scripts directly in the browser; no build step required. | ✅ Native support in modern browsers; no build step required. | 😈 Requires Webpack 5 or similar to set up Module Federation. |
| Project set-ups | 😈 Requires configuration of package.json and build tools. | 🤩🤩 Simple setup; just include scripts in HTML. | ✅ Requires module bundler setup for older browsers; straightforward in modern environments. | 😈 Requires Webpack configuration but allows for flexible micro-frontend architecture. |
| Community Support and Ecosystem | ✅ Large ecosystem of packages and active community. | 😈 Moderate support; many existing scripts but less active development. | ✅ Strong community support with many resources available. | ✨ Growing community, especially among micro-frontend enthusiasts. |
| Learning Curve | 😈 Moderate; familiarity with npm and package management required. | 🤩🤩 Low; easy to include scripts without complex setup. | 😈 Moderate; requires understanding of module syntax and bundling. | 🤡 Steeper; requires understanding of Webpack and micro-frontend concepts. |
| Integration with Other Tools | ✅ Excellent integration with various tools and frameworks. | ✅ Good integration with existing scripts and libraries. | ✅ Strong integration with modern frameworks like React, Angular, Vue. | ✨ Excellent integration with micro-frontend frameworks and tools. |
| Error Handling and Debugging | ✅ Standard error handling; relies on package manager tools. | 🤡 Basic error handling; relies on browser console. | ✅ Good error handling with module imports; better debugging support. | ✨ Advanced error handling; supports runtime error resolution. |
| Versioning and Compatibility | ✅ Robust versioning through npm; handles conflicts well. | 🤡 Manual version management; potential for conflicts. | 🤡 Manual management; can lead to compatibility issues. | ✨ Automatic version resolution; handles conflicts at runtime. |
| Performance Metrics | ✅ Generally good performance; depends on package size. | 🤡 Performance can vary; no built-in optimization. | ✅ Good performance with native module loading; supports optimizations. | ✨ Excellent performance; allows for shared caching and optimizations. |
| Security Considerations | ✅ Security managed through npm; regular updates. | 🤡 Potential for global variable conflicts; manual management needed. | ✅ Supports modern security practices; relies on module imports. | ✨ Strong security features; resolves conflicts at runtime. |
| Deployment Complexity | 😈 Moderate complexity; requires build and deployment pipeline. | 🤩🤩 Low complexity; easy to include scripts in HTML. | 😈 Moderate complexity; requires bundler setup. | 🤡 High complexity; requires Webpack configuration and micro-frontend setup. |
| Scalability | ✅ Scales well with project size; good for larger applications. | 🤡 Limited scalability; best for smaller projects. | ✅ Scales well; suitable for modern applications. | ✨ Excellent scalability; designed for large applications with multiple teams. |
| Support for SSR (Server-Side Rendering) | 😈 Limited support; mainly client-side focused. | 🤡 Not suitable for SSR; client-side only. | ✅ Supports SSR with additional setup; good for SEO. | ✨ Strong support for SSR; ideal for performance-critical applications |
Scenario TradeOffs
1. Small to Medium Projects
- Recommended Technology: NPM
- Trade-offs:
- Pros: Easy to set up and manage dependencies; large ecosystem of packages available; good for projects where code reuse is crucial.
- Cons: Requires a build step; limited support for dynamic imports; may lead to larger bundle sizes if not managed properly.
2. Legacy Applications
- Recommended Technology: UMD
- Trade-offs:
- Pros: Allows for gradual migration from older systems; can work in various environments (CommonJS, AMD, global variables); easy to integrate with existing scripts.
- Cons: Manual management of dependencies; no built-in caching; may not support modern development practices as effectively.
3. Modern Web Applications
- Recommended Technology: ESM
- Trade-offs:
- Pros: Native support in modern browsers; cleaner syntax with
importandexport; supports dynamic imports for better performance. - Cons: Limited support in older browsers; requires a build step for compatibility; dependency management must be handled manually.
- Pros: Native support in modern browsers; cleaner syntax with
4. Large Scale Applications with Multiple Teams
- Recommended Technology: Module Federation (MF)
- Trade-offs:
- Pros: Excellent for micro-frontend architecture; allows for dynamic sharing of modules at runtime; automatic dependency resolution; facilitates independent deployment of teams.
- Cons: Requires a more complex setup with Webpack; may introduce overhead in managing shared dependencies; learning curve for teams unfamiliar with the technology.
5. Rapid Prototyping
- Recommended Technology: UMD or NPM
- Trade-offs:
- Pros: Quick to set up and iterate; UMD allows for easy inclusion of scripts without a build step; NPM provides access to a vast library of packages.
- Cons: UMD may lead to dependency conflicts; NPM requires a build process which could slow down rapid iterations.
6. Performance-Critical Applications
- Recommended Technology: ESM or MF
- Trade-offs:
- Pros: ESM supports code-splitting and dynamic imports, leading to better load times; MF allows for shared caching of modules, reducing load times for shared dependencies.
- Cons: ESM requires modern browser support; MF setup can be complex and may require thorough testing to ensure performance optimizations are effective.
7. Cross-Domain Applications
- Recommended Technology: Module Federation (MF)
- Trade-offs:
- Pros: Built-in support for sharing modules across different applications, even if they are hosted on different domains; resolves conflicts at runtime.
- Cons: Complexity in setup and configuration; requires a solid understanding of
Webpackand micro-frontend principles.
Conclusion
Choosing the right technology for organizing web modules depends on the specific needs and constraints of your project. Factors such as team size, project scale, performance requirements, and the existing technology stack should all influence your decision. By understanding the trade-offs associated with each technology, you can make informed choices that align with your project's goals and enhance overall development efficiency.