Yes the Nintendo Switch analogy is coming up a lot it’s sad I didn’t think of it while writing the article 😅
The headless architecture is usually created with abstraction and extendability in mind. This means that not only can it be presented by different types of clients (websites, mobile apps, etc…), but it also allows you to easily integrate your server with other services.
With traditional architectures everything is typically managed together on the same server as if it’s all a single module rather than separate modules. This means that when you need to integrate a new service or make changes to the server there are so many components that are dependent on one another that it can become a hassle or you’ll even need to do a lot of hacky solutions.
A headless architecture typically eliminates the need for hacky solutions because it’s designed to be a single component or module that can communicate with other components or modules, rather than having them all depend on one another.
Not sure if my answer is clear enough but I hope you found it helpful!
That's what I wanted to hear! Thank you! I keep on reading headless = "no front-end" and is not about that at all.
Also I think that is key that on a headless service, the service is a full product itself when on a client-server application both parts form a whole.
Yes the Nintendo Switch analogy is coming up a lot it’s sad I didn’t think of it while writing the article 😅
The headless architecture is usually created with abstraction and extendability in mind. This means that not only can it be presented by different types of clients (websites, mobile apps, etc…), but it also allows you to easily integrate your server with other services.
With traditional architectures everything is typically managed together on the same server as if it’s all a single module rather than separate modules. This means that when you need to integrate a new service or make changes to the server there are so many components that are dependent on one another that it can become a hassle or you’ll even need to do a lot of hacky solutions.
A headless architecture typically eliminates the need for hacky solutions because it’s designed to be a single component or module that can communicate with other components or modules, rather than having them all depend on one another.
Not sure if my answer is clear enough but I hope you found it helpful!
That's what I wanted to hear! Thank you! I keep on reading headless = "no front-end" and is not about that at all.
Also I think that is key that on a headless service, the service is a full product itself when on a client-server application both parts form a whole.
Thank you for your response.
The no frontend thing is just a part of it that explains the term “headless” but the entire architecture focuses on much more than that!
Thank you for your comments and for reading the article