Approaches for Multi-Module Feature Architecture on Android

Designing an effective architecture for your Android project is crucial! Trust me, we've been there. After years of trial, error, and modification, we've learned the hard way that the architecture you choose can either make or break your project. Want a smooth development process? Check. Maintainability? Absolutely. Scalability? You bet! It all comes down to the choices you make early on—and trust us, those choices have a ripple effect across the entire lifecycle of your app.

In the beginning, we started out with simpler, monolithic designs (you know, the kind you throw together to just get something working). But as our projects grew in size and complexity—well, let's just say we quickly hit some pretty big walls. Code became messy, features started to overlap, and development slowed to a crawl. It wasn’t attractive. So, what did we do? We looked into modularized architectures, and guess what? Changes everything.

Why Multi-Module Architecture is Essential?

Let’s get real. If you’re building a large Android development project, a multi-module architecture is a good option. Why? Because it helps you keep things neat, scalable, and organized. You get to separate your concerns properly—meaning different features of your app can live happily in their modules, free from the chaos of everything being intertwined. It's like giving each feature its own room to breathe. And when your team is growing or your app starts to get more complex? This approach becomes a must.

But let’s not exaggerate things—modularization can be tricky. We went through plenty of confusing moments trying to figure out the best way to divide our modules. Should we group by feature? Domain? Or something else? After some real-world experimentation (and a few "uh-oh" moments), we found what works best for different situations.

Four Modularization Patterns We’ve Explored

Over the years, we’ve tried four main modularization patterns in our projects. Each has its pros and cons, and we’re here to share what worked, what didn’t, and when you should consider using them. Let’s dive in!

Pattern 1: Feature Module with Separate Domain and Presentation Modules

This is the big-dog pattern we turned to when things started getting serious. In this setup, each feature module (like onboarding or authentication) gets its own two Android library modules—one for the domain layer and one for the presentation layer.

What we liked:

1. Separation of concerns? Nailed it. Each feature is neatly split between domain and presentation logic, meaning everything stays clean. Reusing domain logic across features is a breeze, and independent testing becomes easy.
2. Scalability for days. In one of our larger projects (with multiple teams working in parallel), this setup worked like a dream. Everyone could do their thing in their modules without bumping into each other.

What didn’t work as well:

1. Oh, the complexity. While we love this structure, it comes with a price: managing lots of modules. Dependency management becomes a nightmare if you’re not careful. We had to work hard to avoid circular dependencies, which was no small task.
2. It’s resource-intensive. This pattern requires strict adherence to architecture rules from the entire team, meaning lots of onboarding, training, and yes, time. It’s not cheap to maintain.

When to use it: Go for this if you’re working on a large, complex project with a lot of distinct features. It’s ideal when you have multiple teams working in parallel, but make sure everyone’s on the same page about keeping the structure clean.

Pattern 2: Single Features Module

If Pattern 1 sounds like too much for your project, consider this one. With Pattern 2, you create a single features module at the root, and inside, each individual feature gets its own Android library. It’s simple, it’s straightforward, and it’s fast to get going.

What we liked:

1. Simplicity at its best. This pattern is far easier to manage, making it perfect for smaller teams or when you're under time pressure (hello, MVPs!). No need to worry about juggling multiple modules.
2. Speed. When we needed to quickly validate a business idea, this pattern allowed us to move at lightning speed, focusing on features rather than architecture.

What didn’t work as well:

1. Scalability issues. As our project grew, this setup became harder to manage. We couldn’t cleanly separate domain and presentation logic anymore, and things got messy fast.
2. No real separation. Domain and presentation layers are lumped together, which makes keeping a clean architecture a challenge as the app grows.

When to use it: This pattern is your go-to for small projects or MVPs where speed matters more than long-term maintainability. But if you’re planning to scale up later, beware—it can become a bottleneck.

Pattern 3: Nested Feature Modules

Take Pattern 1 and turn it up a notch. In Pattern 3, instead of having domain and presentation modules at the root level, they’re nested inside the feature module itself. It’s like taking modularization and putting it into a tidy box.

What we liked:

1. Separation of concerns done right. Like Pattern 1, this structure lets you keep domain and presentation logic nicely separated, and it scales well.
2. Modularity on point. Features are self-contained in their own little modules, which is great when you’ve got distinct features that don’t overlap much.

What didn’t work as well:

1. Even more complexity. This pattern adds extra layers of nesting, which, while organized, adds to the overall complexity. Managing all those nested modules can get tricky fast.
2. Circular dependency risks. We’ve had to set up safeguards to make sure we didn’t run into any circular dependency issues. One slip, and you’re in for a headache.

When to use it: Ideal for large projects that need to scale over time. It’s especially useful when you want a clean separation of logic but want everything encapsulated inside feature modules.

Pattern 4: Feature Folder with Internal Separation

This pattern sits somewhere in the middle between simplicity and modularity. We create a feature folder at the root, and each feature gets a single Android library module. Inside each module, you’ll find subfolders for DI, Domain, and Presentation.

What we liked:

1. Simplified structure. This is a balance between the over-the-top complexity of Pattern 1 and the bare-bones simplicity of Pattern 2. It’s easy to manage but still gives you some degree of separation.
2. Encapsulation. Each feature is self-contained, which keeps things organized and easy to navigate. It was super helpful in our mid-sized projects, where we didn’t need anything too complex.

What didn’t work so well:

1. Limited isolation. While the structure is clean, domain and presentation logic aren’t physically separated into distinct modules, which limits flexibility.
2. Scalability issues. This pattern works well for mid-sized projects, but it might not scale as smoothly as Pattern 1 or 3.

When to use it: Use this pattern when working on medium-sized projects where you want some modularity without going all-in on complexity.

Choosing the Right Modularization Pattern for You

If there’s one thing we’ve learned, it’s that there’s no one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to architecture. It all depends on your project’s specific needs. You need to think about team size, project complexity, and whether you plan to scale in the future.

1. Team size matters. For large teams (think 50+ developers), separating concerns is crucial. Patterns 1 and 3 are perfect here, while Pattern 4 is better for smaller teams.
2. Project complexity. The more complex your project, the more you’ll benefit from modularization. Simple projects can get away with Pattern 2, but for more involved projects, go with Patterns 1 or 3.
3. Scalability. If you expect your project to grow over time, you’ll need the scalability that comes with Patterns 1 and 3. If not, Patterns 2 and 4 should do the trick.
4. Speed vs. long-term maintainability. For quick-and-dirty projects (like MVPs), Pattern 2 is perfect. But if you’re in it for the long haul, you’ll want the solid structure of Patterns 1 or 3.

Final Thoughts

So, what’s the best architecture for your Android project? The answer depends on your unique situation. From our experience, different projects require different approaches, and it’s all about finding the right fit for your team and goals. By understanding the complexity, scalability requirements, and team size, you can make the best choice for your Android project and set yourself up for success in the long run. Let’s build something amazing!

Ready to take your Android app development to new heights? Let our team help you design a scalable, maintainable architecture that fits your unique needs—whether you're building an MVP or a complex, feature-rich app. Get started today and set your project up for long-term success!

Visit CodeSuite Android App Development to learn more!