标签：#microfrontends

Part 4 covered how this platform actually ships — scaffolding, CI/CD, and the two deployment shapes. This closing part is the two things every one of the last four parts has assumed: who actually owns each piece of this, and what it takes to make this whole template yours. Who owns what Every piece of this platform belongs to exactly one team, and that split is what makes independent deploys survive contact with a real organization, not just a single-team demo: Piece Owned by Depends on Host / Shell Platform team Store, Components, the manifest, the identity provider Components MFE Platform / design-systems team Nothing (a leaf) Store MFE Platform team The identity provider Utilities MFE Platform team Nothing (a leaf) Domain MFE (×N) Domain team Components, Store, Utilities only Manifest Registry Platform team Nothing Identity provider(s) Outside the platform — whichever the deployment configures — Backend / BFF Domain team, or a shared gateway (Part 2) Each team's own data The rule underneath the table: domain teams never import from each other, only from the shared platform layer. That keeps the dependency graph a strict two-level tree — Host → platform layer → domain leaves — instead of a mesh, which is what keeps independent deployability tractable once there's more than a handful of domain teams. It's the same rule that made every part of this series possible to write in isolation: Part 3's auth flow doesn't need to know Part 4's deploy pipeline exists, and neither needs to know how many domain teams there eventually are. Making this template your own Everything organization-specific in this platform — branding, which identity provider(s) it trusts, where the manifest lives — has lived in one file across this entire series, on purpose: // platform.config.json { "orgName" : "acme-corp" , "branding" : { "primaryColor" : "#0B5FFF" , "logoUrl" : "..." }, "idp" : { "issuers" : [ { "id" : "primary" , "issuer" : "https://issuer.example.com" , "clientId" : "..." , "def

This series walks through an actual enterprise microfrontend platform, end to end: one Host shell, three shared platform microfrontends, a manifest-driven mechanism for mounting any number of independently-owned domain microfrontends, a full OIDC auth flow, and a CI/CD pipeline. Every code snippet in this series is real and traceable to the actual boilerplate it's built from, on GitHub . Part 1 is the decision everything else in this series depends on: why Module Federation , and not one of the two other credible options. The one requirement that rules everything else out Strip away the buzzwords, and an "enterprise microfrontend platform" only has to guarantee one thing: a team ships a change to their part of the app without anyone else redeploying anything. Not "in theory, with enough coordination" — actually, mechanically, true. If shipping one team's bug fix requires a platform team to cut a release, this isn't microfrontends — it's a monolith with extra steps. That single requirement rules out more than it looks like it should. It rules out compiling every team's code into one shared build (that's just a single-page app with more steps). And it rules out anything where the Host app needs to know, at its own build time, which teams' pages exist and which version of each — because "known when the Host was built" and "deployed independently of the Host" are opposites. The decision Use Webpack 5 Module Federation , in runtime-composition mode, as the platform's way of putting every team's page together into one app: The Host ships with an empty list of remote apps built in. Instead, it looks up every team's page from a small list — a manifest — that it fetches fresh every time the app loads. React, the shared state layer, and the shared design system are all declared as singletons : every team's page gets the exact same running instance of each, not its own separate copy. "Deploying" a team's page means adding or updating one entry in that manifest. The Host itself