Pros of single-spa

• Framework-agnostic, supporting a wider range of technologies
• More mature and established project with a larger community
• Offers more flexibility and control over the micro-frontend architecture

Cons of single-spa

• Steeper learning curve and more complex setup
• Requires more manual configuration and boilerplate code
• Less opinionated, which can lead to inconsistencies across projects

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 supports a wider range of technologies, making it suitable for complex, diverse architectures. However, it requires more setup and configuration.

qiankun, built on top of single-spa, provides a more opinionated and streamlined approach, making it easier to get started with micro-frontends. It offers additional features like JavaScript sandbox and CSS isolation out of the box, but may be less flexible for highly customized setups.

Pros of module-federation-examples

• Provides a wide range of examples for different Module Federation scenarios
• 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 implementation
• Requires more configuration and setup compared to qiankun
• May have higher runtime overhead in some scenarios

Code Comparison

qiankun:

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

module-federation-examples:

new ModuleFederationPlugin({
  name: 'host',
  remotes: {
    app1: 'app1@http://localhost:3001/remoteEntry.js',
  },
  shared: ['react', 'react-dom'],
})

Summary

While qiankun offers a simpler setup and easier integration for micro-frontends, module-federation-examples provides more flexibility and a wider range of use cases. qiankun is better suited for quick implementation of micro-frontends, especially in React-based applications. On the other hand, module-federation-examples offers more advanced features and integration options, making it suitable for complex scenarios and diverse technology stacks.

Pros of SystemJS

• More mature and widely adopted project with a larger community
• Supports loading various module formats (CommonJS, AMD, UMD) in addition to ES modules
• Lighter weight and focused solely on module loading

Cons of SystemJS

• Requires more manual configuration for complex micro-frontend setups
• Lacks built-in sandbox isolation and communication mechanisms between micro-apps
• Does not provide lifecycle management for micro-applications out of the box

Code Comparison

qiankun:

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

SystemJS:

System.import('./app1.js').then(function(module) {
  module.init();
});

Summary

qiankun is a comprehensive micro-frontend framework built on top of single-spa, offering features like sandboxing, prefetching, and lifecycle management. It provides a higher-level abstraction for micro-frontend architecture.

SystemJS, on the other hand, is a universal module loader that focuses on loading various module formats in the browser. It's more flexible but requires additional setup for implementing a full micro-frontend solution.

Choose qiankun for a more opinionated, out-of-the-box micro-frontend setup, or SystemJS for greater flexibility in module loading and custom micro-frontend implementations.

Pros of micro-frontends

• Simpler implementation with less overhead
• More flexible and framework-agnostic approach
• Easier to integrate with existing projects

Cons of micro-frontends

• Less comprehensive feature set compared to qiankun
• Requires more manual configuration and setup
• Limited built-in support for advanced scenarios

Code Comparison

micro-frontends:

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

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

start();

qiankun:

import { registerMicroApps, start } from 'qiankun';

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

start();

Both repositories aim to implement micro-frontend architectures, but they differ in their approach and feature set. micro-frontends offers a more lightweight and flexible solution, while qiankun provides a more comprehensive and opinionated framework with additional features like sandbox isolation and prefetching. The choice between the two depends on project requirements, existing infrastructure, and desired level of control over the micro-frontend implementation.