I was recently working on a large-scale React application, and a familiar problem resurfaced. Our team was growing, and the single, massive codebase was becoming a bottleneck. Deployments were risky, coordination was a constant struggle, and developer velocity was slowing down. We needed a way to break the monolith without creating a mess of disjointed experiences for our users. That’s when I started looking seriously at combining Webpack Module Federation with React to build a micro-frontend architecture. It felt like finding a new path forward.
Let me show you what this looks like in practice. The core idea is simple: one React application (the host) can load components from another, completely separate React application (the remote) at runtime. They don’t need to be built together. Here’s a basic setup for a remote application that wants to share a Button component.
Remote Application’s Webpack Config:
// webpack.config.js (Remote App)
const ModuleFederationPlugin = require("webpack").container.ModuleFederationPlugin;
module.exports = {
plugins: [
new ModuleFederationPlugin({
name: "remote_app",
filename: "remoteEntry.js",
exposes: {
"./Button": "./src/components/Button",
},
shared: {
react: { singleton: true, requiredVersion: "^18.0.0" },
"react-dom": { singleton: true, requiredVersion: "^18.0.0" },
},
}),
],
};This configuration creates a special file called remoteEntry.js. It acts as a manifest, telling the world, “Hey, I have a Button component available for use.” The shared section is crucial. It tells Webpack, “Let’s try to use the same React instance as the host app to avoid duplication.” This is a major performance win.
Now, how does the host application use this remote button? It doesn’t need to install it as an npm package. It fetches it on-demand. The host’s configuration points to the remote’s manifest file.
Host Application’s Webpack Config:
// webpack.config.js (Host App)
new ModuleFederationPlugin({
name: "host_app",
remotes: {
remote_app: "remote_app@http://localhost:3001/remoteEntry.js",
},
shared: {
react: { singleton: true, requiredVersion: "^18.0.0" },
"react-dom": { singleton: true, requiredVersion: "^18.0.0" },
},
}),With this connection established, using the remote component in your host’s React code involves dynamic imports. It feels almost like magic.
Using the Remote Component in Host App:
import React, { Suspense } from 'react';
const RemoteButton = React.lazy(() => import("remote_app/Button"));
function App() {
return (
<div>
<h1>Host Application</h1>
<Suspense fallback={<div>Loading Button...</div>}>
<RemoteButton onClick={() => alert('Clicked!')}>
I came from another app!
</RemoteButton>
</Suspense>
</div>
);
}Notice the Suspense boundary. This is essential because we are now loading code over the network. What happens if the remote server is slow or down? Your UI needs to handle that loading and error state gracefully. This shift—from compile-time dependencies to runtime dependencies—is the single biggest mental model change.
This architecture shines for cross-team independence. Imagine a dashboard used by different departments. The finance team can own and deploy their “RevenueChart” component. The support team can manage their “LiveChat” widget. Both are separate React apps. The main dashboard shell simply pulls them in. The finance team can update their chart ten times a day without ever needing to involve the support team or trigger a full dashboard redeploy. The autonomy is real.
But what about shared state? If my remote component needs to know the user’s ID, how does it get it? This is where the challenges begin. You can’t just rely on a shared React Context that was created in the host app; the remote component runs in a different build scope. The most robust solutions involve passing state down explicitly via props or using a shared external event bus or state management library that is also loaded as a shared dependency. It requires more upfront design.
Styling is another consideration. How do you ensure the remote button looks like it belongs in the host application? You need a shared design system. This often means sharing a common CSS library or utility classes (like Tailwind) as a shared dependency. Without this, you risk a fragmented user interface. Consistency becomes a contract between teams, not just a technical given.
So, is the performance better or worse? It’s a trade-off. You save on initial bundle size by sharing large libraries like React. However, you add network latency for fetching remote modules. The key is to be strategic. Don’t federate every tiny component. Federate larger, distinct feature sets. Use techniques like prefetching critical remote entries so they’re ready when needed. The performance profile changes from one large download to several smaller, asynchronous ones.
This approach isn’t just for breaking up big apps. Think about a platform that offers plugins or extensions. Third-party developers could build their features as standalone federated React applications. Your platform’s core shell could dynamically discover and load these plugins, creating an ecosystem without you having to build every feature yourself. The possibilities extend far beyond internal team structure.
Adopting this pattern is a significant architectural decision. It introduces operational complexity: you now have multiple applications to monitor, secure, and deploy. Version mismatches in shared dependencies can cause subtle bugs. You need strong DevOps practices and clear agreements between teams on APIs and versioning.
Yet, when the pain of a monolithic frontend is great enough, this complexity becomes worth it. The ability to scale development horizontally, to deploy features independently, and to isolate failures to specific modules is transformative. It turns a single, fragile frontend into a composed system of reliable parts.
I encourage you to start with a small proof of concept. Federate a single, non-critical component. Feel the workflow. Experience the independence it grants. It might just change how you think about building for the web.
If this exploration into micro-frontends with React and Webpack resonated with you, or if you’ve faced similar scaling challenges, I’d love to hear about it. Please share your thoughts in the comments below, and if you found this useful, consider sharing it with others who might be on this same architectural journey.
As a best-selling author, I invite you to explore my books on Amazon. Don’t forget to follow me on Medium and show your support. Thank you! Your support means the world!
101 Books
101 Books is an AI-driven publishing company co-founded by author Aarav Joshi. By leveraging advanced AI technology, we keep our publishing costs incredibly low—some books are priced as low as $4—making quality knowledge accessible to everyone.
Check out our book Golang Clean Code available on Amazon.
Stay tuned for updates and exciting news. When shopping for books, search for Aarav Joshi to find more of our titles. Use the provided link to enjoy special discounts!
📘 Checkout my latest ebook for free on my channel!
Be sure to like, share, comment, and subscribe to the channel!
Our Creations
Be sure to check out our creations:
Investor Central | Investor Central Spanish | Investor Central German | Smart Living | Epochs & Echoes | Puzzling Mysteries | Hindutva | Elite Dev | JS Schools
We are on Medium
Tech Koala Insights | Epochs & Echoes World | Investor Central Medium | Puzzling Mysteries Medium | Science & Epochs Medium | Modern Hindutva
