To Monorepo or Not With Next.js?

We do not use the full-stack capabilities of frameworks such as Next.js, Nuxt.js and SvelteKit. Therefore we do not use them as a monorepo that contains both the server and client either. Let's walk through the reasons why you should or should not use monorepos.

First, the benefits:

1. Unified Development Experience:
   • Single Repository: All code, issues, and documentation are in one place, making it easier to manage and search.
   • Consistent Tooling: You can enforce consistent coding standards, linters, and build tools across both the client and server.
2. Simplified Dependency Management:
   • Shared Dependencies: You can manage dependencies centrally and avoid version mismatches between client and server libraries.
3. Streamlined CI/CD:
   • Integrated Testing: Easier to set up continuous integration pipelines that run tests across both client and server, ensuring they work well together.
   • Single Deployment Pipeline: Simplifies deployment processes, as you can deploy both parts of the application together.
4. Code Sharing:
   • Shared Code: Easier to share code between client and server, such as utility functions, types, and validation schemas.
5. Simplified Refactoring:
   • Coordinated Changes: Refactoring that affects both client and server can be done in a single commit, ensuring that changes are synchronized.

And now the negatives of using a monorepo with both the server and the client:

1. Increased Complexity:
   • Large Repository: As the application grows, the repository can become large and complex, which might make it harder to navigate and slower to clone.
   • Complex Build Process: Building the monorepo might become complex, especially if the client and server have different build requirements.
2. Dependency Management Challenges:
   • Version Conflicts: Managing dependencies can be more challenging, as you need to ensure that versions of shared dependencies are compatible with both client and server.
3. CI/CD Overhead:
   • Longer Build Times: A single change can trigger a build and test cycle for the entire repository, potentially increasing build times.
   • Resource Usage: Running tests and builds for a large monorepo can consume more CI/CD resources.
4. Scalability Issues:
   • Team Coordination: As the team grows, coordinating work in a single repository can become challenging, potentially leading to more merge conflicts and coordination overhead.
   • Permissions and Access Control: Managing permissions can be more difficult, as everyone has access to the entire codebase.

When to Use a Monorepo:

• Small to Medium Projects: Ideal for projects where the client and server are closely related and managed by a small to medium-sized team.
• Frequent Shared Code: When there is a significant amount of shared code between client and server.
• Unified Workflow: When a unified development and deployment workflow is beneficial for the project.

When to Avoid a Monorepo:

• Large Projects with Distinct Modules: For large projects with distinct modules or services, a monorepo might become unwieldy.
• Different Teams: When different teams are responsible for client and server, separate repos can help manage permissions and responsibilities better.
• Independent Deployment Cycles: If the client and server have independent deployment cycles and are loosely coupled.

Conclusion

Using a monorepo for both client and server makes sense if you prioritize a unified development experience, shared dependencies, and streamlined CI/CD processes. However, as the project scales, you may encounter challenges related to complexity, build times, and team coordination. Evaluating the specific needs and scale of your project will help determine if a monorepo is the right choice.