Using Hexagonal Architecture for Mobile Applications

• Testability
• Separation of application and domain logic
• Loosely coupled User Interface
• Independence
  • of external frameworks
  • of external agencies

Photo by Joshua Earle on Unsplash

• No different goals from general applications
• Difference in testability
• Existence of code not runnable on development hardware

Photo by Balázs Kétyi on Unsplash

• MVX (MVC, MVVM, MVP, MVU, …)
• Mobile-only Architecture
• General Software Architecture

Photo by Joshua Earle on Unsplash

• Not an Architecture but a high-level design pattern
• Not sufficient for non trivial apps
• May be combined with a software architecture

• Often OS specific
• Often tightly integrated with only one shape of MVX

• Not clear if fitting for mobile applications
• Scant research

• BCE (Boundary-Control-Entity)
• DDD (Domain Driven Design)
• Hexagonal Architecture (aka Ports and Adapters)
• Onion Architecture
• Clean Architecture

Photo by Joshua Earle on Unsplash

• Very popular
• Many misleading mobile implementations

• Shares base with clean architecture
• Easy to implement and extend

• Modularity
• Dependencies
• Concurrency
• Platform Dependency

Photo by Joshua Earle on Unsplash

• Seperate into packages
• Use built-in approach

Photo by Ashkan Forouzani on Unsplash

Either

• Dependency Injection Framework
• Manually configurable dependencies

Photo by Sara Bakhshi on Unsplash

• Use newest built-in general approach
• Should be part of the ports

Photo by Faris Mohammed on Unsplash

• Application is always independent
• UI may be dependent
• Infrastructure should be split into dependent and independent parts

Photo by Lee Easton on Unsplash

• Most mobile applications should use a software architecture
• Hexagonal Architecture is recommended
  • Achieves architectural goals
  • Flexible
  • Extendible
• Mobile specific challenges can be addressed

Photo by Patrick Perkins on Unsplash