React has evolved significantly over the years, offering developers multiple architectural choices for building web applications. From Single Page Applications (SPAs) to Server-Side Rendering (SSR) frameworks and the emerging React Server Components (RSC), each approach comes with its own set of tradeoffs. This article delves into these architectures to help developers understand their differences, benefits, and drawbacks, enabling them to make informed decisions for their projects.

Understanding SPAs

Single Page Applications (SPAs) have long been the default way to build React apps. They are lightweight and fast once the bundle is loaded, offering flexibility in architecture and easy hosting as static files. SPAs allow developers to decouple the front-end stack from the backend, making them a popular choice for projects where the backend isn’t JavaScript-based.

Advantages of SPAs

1. Flexibility: SPAs provide freedom in architectural decisions, allowing developers to set up their own conventions.
2. Fast Page Transitions: Once loaded, SPAs deliver seamless navigation between pages.
3. Static Hosting: SPAs can be hosted as static files, simplifying deployment.

Challenges with SPAs

1. Performance Issues: Initial page loads require multiple serial requests, leading to slower performance.
2. SEO Limitations: Client-side rendering can negatively impact SEO due to delayed data loading.
3. Complex Architecture: Managing global state and data-fetching strategies often leads to intricate architecture.

Modern tools like Vite have become the go-to scaffolding for building SPAs with React. However, the React team now recommends using frameworks instead of SPAs whenever possible.

The Case for SSR Frameworks

Server-Side Rendering (SSR) frameworks like Next.js and React Router Framework offer a hybrid approach that combines the best of SPA concepts with server-side rendering capabilities. These frameworks serve fully-formed HTML on initial page loads while enabling client-side navigation for subsequent interactions.

Benefits of SSR Frameworks

1. Improved Performance: By pre-fetching data and handling lazy-loading automatically, SSR frameworks eliminate common pitfalls associated with SPAs.
2. SEO Optimization: Fully-formed HTML improves search engine visibility.
3. Simplified Architecture: Frameworks handle data-fetching and revalidation seamlessly, reducing the need for complex glue-work.

Key Features of SSR Frameworks

• Lazy Loading: Frameworks know what components to load based on conventions and pre-fetch data before users navigate to new pages.
• Client-Side Navigation: After the initial page load, subsequent navigations happen without refreshing the page, combining SPA-like speed with MPA-like robustness.
• Loaders and Actions: These features allow data-fetching on both server-side and client-side transitions while handling backend mutations efficiently.

SSR frameworks eliminate many of the architectural complexities inherent in SPAs by automating processes such as revalidation and state synchronization.

React Server Components (RSC): The New Frontier

React Server Components (RSC) represent a new specification that allows components to run exclusively on the server. These components handle data-fetching within themselves but do not hydrate on the client side—resulting in smaller bundle sizes.

Advantages of RSC

1. Reduced Hydration: Less client-side hydration leads to faster load times.
2. Smaller Bundles: By keeping certain components server-only, RSC minimizes JavaScript payloads.

Challenges with RSC

1. Complexity: Managing mutations and forms with RSC can be overwhelming compared to traditional SSR approaches.
2. Limited Adoption: While Next.js supports RSC through its “app” architecture, developers have expressed concerns about its implementation.

RSC is not intended to replace SSR components but rather complement them by offering additional options for optimizing web applications.

Choosing Between SPA, SSR Frameworks, and RSC

When deciding which architecture to use for a React project, consider the following factors:

1. Project Requirements

• Use SPAs if you need maximum flexibility in architecture or if your backend isn’t JavaScript-based.
• Choose SSR frameworks if you prioritize performance optimization and SEO benefits.
• Opt for RSC if reducing hydration is critical for your application’s performance.

2. Team Expertise

SPAs are beginner-friendly but require manual management of state and data-fetching strategies. SSR frameworks simplify these processes but may require familiarity with conventions like loaders and actions.

3. Backend Compatibility

While SSR frameworks rely on Node.js for server-side operations, they can integrate seamlessly with non-JavaScript backends like Java or PHP through loaders.

Here’s an example from React Router Framework:

javascriptexport async function loader({ params }) {
  const user = fetchUser(`java-server.com/api/user/${params.userId}`);
  return user;
}

export default function UserProfile({ user }) {
  return <Profile user={user} />;
}

This approach enables developers to leverage Node.js for frontend-server communication while maintaining their existing backend stack.

Conclusion

React’s evolving ecosystem offers developers multiple architectural choices tailored to different needs. While SPAs provide flexibility and simplicity for small-scale projects, SSR frameworks deliver robust performance and streamlined workflows for larger applications. RSC introduces innovative ways to reduce hydration but may not be suitable for every project due to its complexity.

Ultimately, choosing between SPA, SSR frameworks, or RSC depends on your project’s requirements, team expertise, and backend compatibility. By understanding these tradeoffs, developers can make informed decisions that align with their goals while leveraging React’s powerful capabilities.

Read more such articles from our Newsletter here.