Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Quentin Capdepon

dblp:366/8981 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
0009-0009-5205-2367ORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Requirements engineering and software design · 77% Software maintenance and evolution · 23%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Requirements engineering and software design
software architecture
0.812024
Assessing the feasibility of Micro frontend architecture in native mobile app development · ASE 2024
Software maintenance and evolution › software modularity
modular architecture
0.212024
Assessing the feasibility of Micro frontend architecture in native mobile app development · ASE 2024

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

case study · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Assessing the feasibility of Micro frontend architecture in native mobile app development
abstract
Since their introduction, mobile application development has become complex and now rivals web app development. The primary factor contributing to this complexity is their monolithic architecture: a mobile application is still deployed as a single unit. In contrast, web applications have adopted modular architectures such as Microservice or Micro FrontEnd (MFE). This last approach divides development into teams, each responsible for an MFE corresponding to a specific software feature. Our study examines the adoption of the MFE architecture on native mobile platforms. This paper discusses: i) how MFE can be adapted to current native mobile platforms; ii) the limitations of adapting MFE architecture on mobile; and iii) the challenges MFE introduces to mobile application development. Despite challenges in composing mobile MFEs post-deployment, our research highlighted maintaining a static development-side composite is feasible, albeit with a loss of flexibility. This allows team separation and independent feature development, though technological agnosticism isn't achieved.
Quentin Capdepon, Nicolas Hlad, Benoît Verhaeghe, Abdelhak-Djamel Seriai
ASE1