MICRO-FRONTENDS INTEGRATION FOR ENHANCED USER EXPERIENCE IN WEB APPLICATIONS

ABSTRACT

The swift advancement of web technologies has resulted in heightened demands for scalable, maintainable, and user-centric application architectures. This paper explores the incorporation of micro-frontends into a microservices architecture to improve user experience in intricate web applications. It outlines an architectural approach that segregates frontend components by domain, facilitating autonomous development, deployment, and scaling. A practical implementation illustrates how this modular structure enhances user engagement by improving performance, flexibility, and responsiveness. Quantifiable enhancements in page load speeds, system robustness, and developer efficiency are demonstrated through comparative analysis and application testing. The findings indicate that the amalgamation of micro-frontends with microservices presents a feasible and efficient solution for contemporary systems, particularly those requiring substantial modularity and dynamic interface modifications. The discussion concludes by examining the broader implications of this architectural methodology for future digital product development.

АННОТАЦИЯ

Активное развитие веб-технологий привело к необходимости создания архитектур, обеспечивающих масштабируемость, поддерживаемость и высокий уровень удобства для пользователей. В исследовании рассматривается интеграция микро-фронтендов в микросервисную среду с целью повышения качества пользовательского опыта в сложных веб-приложениях. Предложенная архитектурная модель предполагает разделение фронтенд-компонентов по функциональным доменам, что позволяет реализовывать их независимо и автономно. Практическая реализация демонстрирует, как модульность положительно влияет на взаимодействие пользователя с системой за счёт повышения производительности, гибкости и отзывчивости интерфейса. Результаты сравнительного анализа и тестирования подтверждают улучшения в скорости загрузки, устойчивости и удобстве сопровождения. Интеграция микро-фронтендов с микросервисной архитектурой представляет собой эффективное решение для современных веб-систем, ориентированных на эволюцию интерфейса и модульные обновления. В завершение рассматриваются перспективы дальнейшего развития данного подхода.

Keywords: Micro-frontends, Microservices, User Experience, Web Architecture, Frontend Integration, Scalability.

Ключевые слова: Микро-фронтенды, Микросервисы, Пользовательский опыт, Веб-архитектура, Интеграция фронтенда, Масштабируемость.

Introduction

Over the past ten years, the advent of online apps has fundamentally changed the frontend development limits.  Perfect responsiveness, fast load times, and consistent experiences across devices and platforms are demanded of modern interfaces.  The limits of conventional frontend monoliths have been revealed by this increasing complexity and the always widening feature sets of web services [1].  Many times, large-scale projects suffer from tight coupling between components, rigid release cycles, and rising maintenance costs.  These difficulties intensify as additional capabilities are added and teams grow, leading to bottlenecks influencing end-user satisfaction as well as developer processes.

Architectural change is now almost a requirement rather than a choice.  Frontend development lags behind structural modularity whereas microservices have transformed backend architecture by encouraging service-level autonomy, fault isolation, and team independence[2;3].  Often depending on internal conventions or build-time hacks failing to solve basic problems as domain ownership, deployment autonomy, or runtime integration, attempts to grow frontend codebases rely on  In big web projects, fragmentation of responsibility between frontend teams, lack of reusability between domains, and challenges in managing shared state or dependencies add to growing conflict.

The idea of micro-frontends has evolved as an architectural pattern that spans the core philosophy of microservices to the client-side domain in response to these forces.  This strategy argues for the breakdown of the user interface into independently produced, tested, and deployed parts rather than arranging a web interface as a single deployable unit.  Every piece relates to a particular business domain or application area under the direction of a committed team keeping complete control over its lifetime.  Runtime integration allows concurrent development and deployment free from coordination obstacles.

This structural change creates a spectrum of technical possibilities.  Independent deployment pipelines lower the blast radius of failures, domain-specific optimization becomes realistic, and different technology stacks can cohabit under one application shell.  These features immediately affect the quality of the user experience and support not only internal engineering effectiveness.  Interfaces get more responsive; incremental updates lower downtime; and the application adjusts faster to meet evolving user needs.

Microservices and micro-frontends together build a cohesive modular framework whereby backend services and UI layers grow in harmony.  The basis of this integration is setting unambiguous frontend domain boundaries, matching them with backend APIs, and arranging communication across strong protocols.  Unlike conventional monolithic models in which frontend and backend are loosely coupled, this paradigm stresses a one-to- one mapping between service responsibility and interface ownership.

From an architectural perspective, this work investigates that junction with special focus on how such a system affects usability, maintainability, and scalability [3;4].  The structure of domain-based composition, means of communication between isolated units, and deployment processes supporting autonomy while maintaining coherence form the core of the analysis.  The range of this conversation covers both pragmatic implementation details and design-level issues.  Examining how separate components interact inside the larger system and how this interaction influences performance and user interaction quality helps the work clarify a rising industry practice based on both technical need and user-centered design concepts.

Materials and methods

Architectural Composition and Domain Segmentation

The vertical segmented approach of the system architecture treats every domain as an independently deployable element. Whereas horizontal layering groups issues including presentation, business logic, and data access throughout the whole program, the vertical decomposition ties related functions inside each domain. This captures exactly the microservices mentality on the backend as well as the micro-frontend approach on the client side [4].

Every domain captures data flows, UI logic, and service endpoints of its own. Often known as the application container, the layout shell loads domain-specific micro-frontends and routes user actions based on runtime. Preserving inter-domain isolation helps to reduce side effects between separately created UI modules and prevent dependency leaking.

Figure 1 presents a high-level schematic of this design, stressing the link between microservices and their matching frontend domains.

Figure 1. Microservice and Micro-Frontend Domain Mapping

Frameworks and Runtime Integration Mechanisms

The dynamic assembly of frontend components is facilitated by Webpack Module Federation, allowing autonomous teams to expose and utilize UI modules at runtime without the necessity of re-bundling the complete application [6]. This approach facilitates code splitting, shared dependency management, and runtime isolation of functionalities. Each micro-frontend is independently deployed, delineated using a manifest file, and dynamically integrated into the container application.

Single-spa functions as the orchestration layer that integrates micro-frontends into a cohesive interface. It manages lifecycle events including mounting, unmounting, and loading, while facilitating seamless transitions across domains. The routing is cognizant of domains and executed at the container level, facilitating uninterrupted transitions between apps such as user profiles, payments, or dashboards without necessitating a complete interface reload.

Client-side views are executed via a combination of React and Vue, contingent upon domain ownership and legacy integration requirements. This polyglot approach demonstrates the autonomy of teams overseeing each micro-frontend and is facilitated by Webpack's shared module management.

Communication between the frontend and backend occurs through RESTful APIs, delivered by independently managed containerized microservices. Backend inter-service communication utilizes RabbitMQ, enabling asynchronous event processing and decoupling of services for enhanced scalability and fault isolation.

Backend Services and Domain Logic

The backend layer consists of various microservices designed around business functionalities. Each service possesses an independent database schema, facilitating autonomous expansion and development. Table 1 enumerates the principal microservices incorporated into the system along with their fundamental roles.

Table 1.

Microservices and Functional Responsibilities

Each service exposes a REST API documented via OpenAPI specifications and consumed directly by its corresponding frontend domain. API versioning ensures backward compatibility, while internal service interactions are decoupled through RabbitMQ-based event queues.

User Experience Evaluation Strategy

Objective metrics and subjective input were employed to evaluate the system's influence on user experience. The page load performance was assessed across various domains prior to and following the incorporation of micro-frontends. Metrics were obtained utilizing Lighthouse and Chrome DevTools Performance Profiler, concentrating on Time to Interactive (TTI), First Contentful Paint (FCP), and Total Blocking Time (TBT).

Figure 2 illustrates performance benchmarks, comparing essential UX metrics between the monolithic baseline and the modular system.

Figure 2. User Experience Performance Comparison

Post-deployment surveys were administered to internal testers to assess user perception regarding responsiveness, navigation clarity, and visual consistency.  The survey utilized a five-point Likert scale and was anonymised to guarantee objectivity.  The results indicated a significant enhancement in perceived performance and pleasure, particularly in scenarios requiring cross-domain processes.

Furthermore, modularity and maintainability were assessed by developer input and the duration of issue resolution.  Teams indicated expedited onboarding, well-defined ownership boundaries, and diminished regression rates during feature deployments—demonstrating that structural decomposition yielded both technical efficiency and workflow improvement.

Results and discussions

Quantitative Performance Analysis

The modular switch brought a quantifiable change in frontend performance over important user-facing criteria. Following a micro-frontend composition from monolithic SPA, lighthouse profiling showed a 47% decrease in Time to Interactive (TTI) and a 39% improvement in First Contentful Paint (FCP). These numbers match the performance distribution among independently loaded modules, therefore enabling asynchronous execution and delayed rendering techniques. Total Blocking Time (TBT) also fell noticeably since domain-specific logic no longer crowded a shared JavaScript bundle. The loading pipeline split off such that only the required code for the current domain runs and is seen.

Architectural Impact on UX Quality

Micro-frontends offered a runtime framework that gave user-centric responsiveness first priority [6]. Users discover a progressive interface instead of waiting for a complete bundle compilation as each domain loads and initializes independently. Navigational transitions are isolated within domain borders rather than dependent on client-side state hydration. Faster response to route changes—especially in high-content or dashboard-heavy environments—is made possible by this.

Autonomous deployments helped to ensure interface freshness—that is, where domain teams could bring functional or visual enhancements without complete application redeployment. Direct effects of this agility were user pleasure since feedback-driven iterations arrived in production sooner and with less danger of regression in unrelated modules.

Comparison with Traditional Monolithic SPA

Comparatively with Traditional Monolithic SPAAs the system developed, the monolithic SPA paradigm paid rising costs in bundle size, regression probability, and codebase entanglement even if it could offer a consistent experience.  Every feature release called for complete test cycles across unrelated application components.  Particularly with asynchronous interactions between components, shared global state management had unanticipated side effects.

Micro-frontends, on the other hand, let functionality be planned, implemented, and tested separately, hence allowing modular isolation.  Eliminating close connectivity across domains not only improved build times but also greatly lowered context-switching for development teams.  The modular alternative let distributed responsibility with common orchestration logic limited to the container shell whereas the monolithic SPA suffered from centralizing bottlenecks.

Challenges in Integration and Runtime Composition

Even with the noted improvements, a number of integration-level difficulties surfaced. Dependency sharing brought problems with version mismatches and superfluous packages, particularly concerning UI libraries like component frameworks and styling engines. By means of common singleton configurations, Webpack Module Federation largely addressed these issues; nonetheless, runtime discrepancies periodically appeared when independently managed teams differed in dependent changes.

Inter-micro-frontend communication presents still another important challenge [6;7]. Usually applied via custom pub-sub logic or global state abstractions via context providers, cross-domain messaging demanded a centralized event bus pattern. Particularly when shared state had to be synchronized across unrelated modules without sacrificing isolation, this introduced a delicate balance between independence and interaction, although technically doable.

Conclusion

The architectural amalgamation of micro-frontends with microservices has demonstrated efficacy in resolving the performance, modularity, and maintainability issues intrinsic to contemporary web systems.  The system architecture facilitated enhanced page interactivity, defined development ownership, and improved cross-team collaboration by segmenting the user interface according to domain boundaries and coordinating it with independently deployable backend services [7].

Empirical performance metrics demonstrated that micro-frontends directly enhance responsiveness and resource efficiency when dynamically constructed and tailored to user context.  In addition to technical advancements, the capacity to implement discrete frontend improvements without comprehensive redeployments improved delivery frequency and diminished the operational burden of conventional monolithic architectures.Future prospects include expanding this methodology to mobile platforms, especially via federated delivery systems, and enhancing backend-for-frontend orchestration patterns, which offer potential avenues for additional investigation.  As web ecosystems increasingly emphasize real-time responsiveness, autonomy, and adaptability, the integration of a modular frontend with distributed backend logic establishes a robust platform for sustained evolution.

References:

1. Blinowski G., Ojdowska A., Przybylek A. Monolithic vs. Microservice Architecture: A Performance and Scalability Evaluation // IEEE Access. 2022. Vol. 10. P. 5–6. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3152803
2. Bux R., Shenoy G.S. Performance Analysis of RESTFUL Web Services and RABBITMQ for Microservices based Systems on Cloud Environment // INOCON 2024. 3rd Int. Conf. Innovation in Technology. 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/INOCON60754.2024.10511747
3. Filipe J., Ghosh A., Prates R.O., Zhou L. Communications in Computer and Information Science 1310 Editorial Board Members [Electronic resource]. URL: http://www.springer.com/series/7899
4. Gashi E., Hyseni D., Shabani I., Cico B. The Advantages of Micro-Frontend Architecture for Developing Web Application // MECO 2024. 13th Mediterranean Conf. Embedded Computing. 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/MECO62516.2024.10577836
5. Hayytbayev G., Küçük K., Çavur M. A Robust Microservices Framework for Indoor Tracking System Development // UBMK 2024. 9th Int. Conf. Computer Science and Engineering. P. 10–11. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/UBMK63289.2024.10773474
6. Jasiński Ł., Rezmer J., Leonowicz Z., Martirano L., Jasiński M. Microfrontend Application for Microgrids Monitoring and Controling // EEEIC/I&CPS Europe 2024. 24th Int. Conf. Environment and Electrical Engineering. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/EEEIC/ICPSEurope61470.2024.10751106
7. Leitner P., Cito J., Stöckli E. Modelling and Managing Deployment Costs of Microservice-Based Cloud Applications // UCC 2016. 9th Int. Conf. Utility and Cloud Computing. P. 25–28. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2996890.2996901