Pros of qiankun

• Built-in support for JavaScript sandbox and CSS isolation
• Simplified API and configuration compared to single-spa
• Automatic assets prefetching for improved performance

Cons of qiankun

• Less flexibility for custom implementations
• Primarily designed for React applications, potentially limiting other frameworks
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to micro-frontends

Code Comparison

single-spa:

import { registerApplication, start } from 'single-spa';

registerApplication({
  name: 'app1',
  app: () => import('./app1/main.js'),
  activeWhen: '/app1'
});

start();

qiankun:

import { registerMicroApps, start } from 'qiankun';

registerMicroApps([
  {
    name: 'app1',
    entry: '//localhost:8080',
    container: '#container',
    activeRule: '/app1'
  }
]);

start();

Both single-spa and qiankun are popular micro-frontend frameworks, but they have different approaches. single-spa offers more flexibility and framework-agnostic solutions, while qiankun provides additional features like built-in sandboxing and simplified configuration. The choice between them depends on specific project requirements, team expertise, and desired level of control over the micro-frontend architecture.

Pros of micro-app

• Simpler setup and configuration process
• Built-in support for sandbox isolation and CSS scoping
• Better performance for large-scale applications with many micro-frontends

Cons of micro-app

• Less flexible than single-spa for complex routing scenarios
• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to single-spa
• Limited support for non-React frameworks

Code Comparison

micro-app:

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

single-spa:

registerApplication({
  name: 'app1',
  app: () => System.import('app1'),
  activeWhen: '/app1'
});

micro-app focuses on a declarative HTML-based approach, while single-spa uses a more programmatic JavaScript configuration. micro-app's approach is simpler for basic use cases, but single-spa offers more flexibility for complex scenarios.

Both projects aim to solve micro-frontend architecture challenges, but they differ in their implementation and target use cases. micro-app is more opinionated and provides built-in features for isolation and performance, while single-spa offers greater flexibility and a larger ecosystem. The choice between them depends on specific project requirements and the desired level of control over the micro-frontend implementation.

Pros of module-federation-examples

• Provides a wide range of examples for different use cases and frameworks
• Demonstrates advanced Webpack 5 Module Federation capabilities
• Offers more flexibility in terms of technology choices and integration options

Cons of module-federation-examples

• Steeper learning curve due to the complexity of Module Federation concepts
• Requires Webpack 5, which may not be suitable for all projects
• Less opinionated approach, potentially leading to more decision-making for developers

Code Comparison

single-spa:

import { registerApplication, start } from 'single-spa';

registerApplication(
  'app1',
  () => import('./app1/app1.js'),
  (location) => location.pathname.startsWith('/app1')
);

start();

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',
    }),
  ],
};

Summary

While single-spa focuses on providing a simple and opinionated approach to microfrontends, module-federation-examples showcases the power and flexibility of Webpack 5's Module Federation. The choice between the two depends on project requirements, team expertise, and desired level of control over the microfrontend architecture.

Pros of SystemJS

• More flexible module loading system, supporting various module formats (CommonJS, AMD, UMD)
• Better suited for general-purpose module loading in web applications
• Provides a plugin system for custom loaders and transformations

Cons of SystemJS

• Steeper learning curve compared to Single-spa
• Less focused on micro-frontend architecture
• May require more configuration for complex setups

Code Comparison

SystemJS:

System.import('./module.js').then(function(module) {
  module.doSomething();
});

Single-spa:

singleSpa.registerApplication(
  'appName',
  () => import('./app.js'),
  (location) => location.pathname.startsWith('/app')
);

Key Differences

• SystemJS is a general-purpose module loader, while Single-spa focuses on micro-frontend architecture
• Single-spa provides built-in lifecycle management for applications, whereas SystemJS requires additional setup for similar functionality
• SystemJS offers more flexibility in module loading, but Single-spa simplifies micro-frontend implementation

Use Cases

• Choose SystemJS for complex module loading requirements in various formats
• Opt for Single-spa when building a micro-frontend architecture with multiple applications

Community and Ecosystem

• Both projects have active communities and regular updates
• Single-spa has a more specialized ecosystem for micro-frontend development
• SystemJS has broader adoption for general module loading scenarios