Context
We are developing a web application that requires a robust backend and a rich, interactive frontend. The backend will handle business logic, data storage, and API endpoints, while the frontend will provide a dynamic user interface with smooth interactions. We need to choose appropriate technologies for both the backend and frontend to meet our goals.
Requirements
- Scalability: The application should be able to handle a growing number of users and data.
- Performance: The frontend should be fast and responsive, providing a seamless user experience.
- Development Efficiency: The chosen technologies should facilitate rapid development and easy maintenance.
- Cross-platform Support: The application should run on multiple platforms without significant changes.
- Security: Both the backend and frontend should follow best security practices.
Decision
We have decided to use .NET Core for the backend API and Blazor WebAssembly (WASM) for the frontend.
.NET Core for Backend
Framework: .NET Core 6
Reasoning:
- Cross-platform: .NET Core runs on Windows, Linux, and macOS.
- Performance: .NET Core is known for high performance and efficiency.
- Scalability: It supports microservices architecture and cloud deployment.
- Security: Provides robust security features and compliance with industry standards.
- Ecosystem: Rich ecosystem with libraries, tools, and community support.
Blazor WebAssembly for Frontend
Framework: Blazor WebAssembly
Reasoning:
- Single Page Application (SPA): Provides a rich, interactive user experience.
- .NET Integration: Allows us to use .NET for both frontend and backend, promoting code reuse.
- Performance: Runs directly in the browser via WebAssembly, offering near-native performance.
- Component-based Architecture: Facilitates modular and maintainable code.
- Future-proof: Aligned with modern web development trends and backed by Microsoft.
Consequences
Positive Consequences
- Unified Development: Using .NET for both backend and frontend reduces the learning curve and promotes code reuse.
- Performance: High performance on both the server-side and client-side.
- Scalability: Easily scalable backend with microservices and cloud-native capabilities.
- Maintenance: Simplified maintenance due to a consistent technology stack.
Negative Consequences
- Initial Learning Curve: Team members need to familiarize themselves with Blazor WebAssembly if not already experienced.
- Browser Support: While WebAssembly is widely supported, some older browsers might have limited compatibility.
- Development Tools: Limited debugging tools for Blazor WebAssembly compared to traditional JavaScript frameworks.
Alternatives Considered
- Angular with .NET Core API: Offers a mature and widely-used frontend framework but requires different skill sets for frontend and backend development.
- React with .NET Core API: Provides a highly performant and flexible frontend framework but similarly requires proficiency in both JavaScript and .NET.
- Vue.js with .NET Core API: Another popular choice for the frontend but does not offer the same level of integration with .NET as Blazor.
Decision
We will proceed with the implementation of the .NET Core API and Blazor WebAssembly frontend based on the above considerations.