micro-app

Pros of qiankun

• More mature and widely adopted, with a larger community and ecosystem
• Supports multiple frameworks (React, Vue, Angular) out of the box
• Provides built-in sandbox isolation for better security and stability

Cons of qiankun

• Heavier implementation and potentially more complex setup
• May have performance overhead due to its comprehensive features
• Less flexible for custom configurations and edge cases

Code Comparison

micro-app:

import microApp from '@micro-zoe/micro-app'

microApp.start()

<micro-app name="app1" url="http://localhost:3000/"></micro-app>

qiankun:

import { registerMicroApps, start } from 'qiankun';

registerMicroApps([
  { name: 'app1', entry: '//localhost:3000', container: '#container', activeRule: '/app1' },
]);
start();

Both micro-app and qiankun are micro-frontend solutions, but they differ in their approach and features. micro-app focuses on simplicity and ease of use, with a web components-based implementation. It offers a lighter setup and potentially better performance for simpler use cases. However, it may lack some advanced features and cross-framework support compared to qiankun.

qiankun, on the other hand, provides a more comprehensive solution with built-in support for multiple frameworks and advanced features like sandbox isolation. It's better suited for complex applications with diverse technology stacks but may require more setup and configuration.

Pros of SystemJS

• More mature and widely adopted, with a larger community and ecosystem
• Supports loading various module formats (CommonJS, AMD, UMD) in addition to ES modules
• Offers more flexibility in module loading and configuration options

Cons of SystemJS

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive features and configuration options
• Larger bundle size compared to micro-app, which may impact initial load times
• Requires more setup and configuration for basic use cases

Code Comparison

micro-app:

import microApp from '@micro-zoe/micro-app'

microApp.start()

<micro-app name="app1" url="http://localhost:3000/"></micro-app>

SystemJS:

import { importMap } from 'systemjs'

System.config({
  map: { 'app1': 'http://localhost:3000/main.js' }
})

System.import('app1')

Key Differences

• micro-app focuses specifically on micro-frontends, while SystemJS is a more general-purpose module loader
• micro-app uses a custom HTML element for embedding applications, whereas SystemJS relies on JavaScript API calls
• SystemJS offers more advanced module loading capabilities, while micro-app provides a simpler, more opinionated approach to micro-frontend architecture

Both libraries serve different purposes and cater to different use cases, with micro-app being more specialized for micro-frontend implementations and SystemJS offering broader module loading capabilities.

Pros of module-federation-examples

• Provides a wide range of examples for different Module Federation use cases
• Demonstrates integration with various frameworks and build tools
• Offers more flexibility in terms of runtime dependencies and shared modules

Cons of module-federation-examples

• Steeper learning curve due to its more complex architecture
• Requires more configuration and setup compared to micro-app
• May introduce additional bundle size overhead for smaller applications

Code Comparison

micro-app:

import microApp from '@micro-zoe/micro-app'

microApp.start()

<micro-app name="app1" url="http://localhost:3000/app1/"></micro-app>

module-federation-examples:

const HtmlWebpackPlugin = require('html-webpack-plugin');
const ModuleFederationPlugin = require('webpack/lib/container/ModuleFederationPlugin');

module.exports = {
  plugins: [
    new ModuleFederationPlugin({
      name: 'app1',
      filename: 'remoteEntry.js',
      exposes: {
        './App': './src/App',
      },
      shared: ['react', 'react-dom'],
    }),
    new HtmlWebpackPlugin({
      template: './public/index.html',
    }),
  ],
};

Pros of emp

• More flexible architecture, supporting multiple micro-frontend implementation methods
• Better TypeScript support and type definitions
• More active community with frequent updates and contributions

Cons of emp

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex configuration options
• Less focus on simplicity compared to micro-app
• May require more setup time for basic use cases

Code Comparison

micro-app:

import microApp from '@micro-zoe/micro-app'

microApp.start()

<micro-app name="app1" url="http://localhost:3000/app1/"></micro-app>

emp:

import { createMicroApp } from '@efox/emp'

const app = createMicroApp({
  name: 'app1',
  entry: 'http://localhost:3000/app1/',
})

app.mount('#app-container')

Both micro-app and emp are micro-frontend frameworks, but they differ in their approach and features. micro-app focuses on simplicity and ease of use, making it a good choice for projects that need a straightforward micro-frontend solution. emp, on the other hand, offers more flexibility and advanced features, making it suitable for complex applications that require fine-grained control over the micro-frontend architecture.

emp's TypeScript support and active community can be advantageous for larger teams or projects with strict type requirements. However, its increased complexity may lead to a longer setup time and a steeper learning curve compared to micro-app.

When choosing between the two, consider your project's specific needs, team expertise, and desired level of control over the micro-frontend implementation.