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.