[Feature suggestion] Make bundler optional

[nuxlli]

It would be interesting to have an option to disable the internal pkg bundler. This would allow the coupling of an external tool for that purpose, in my case I am using http://fuse-box.org

I made a few attempts to change the code, but it was a bit more complex than expected. If it is in the interest of anyone else I can work on a patch, what do you think?

[igorklopov]

You can bundle your project with fuse-box, get output bundle file and compile the file with pkg. What do you think of it?

[vweevers]

+1. Currently one has to rename require statements to bypass pkg's bundling. For example, if you want to use browserify instead (I'm not familiar with fuse-box but expect it's similar):

browserify --node --no-dg cli.js | derequire > bundle.js
pkg bundle.js

It would be great if:

1. pkg would accept stdin input
2. indeed had an option to disable bundling

So you could do something like:

browserify --node --no-dg cli.js | pkg --no-bundle --output my-app

I realize there's more to it: pkg also does asset detection, transforms __filename etc. So you might want options for those too. I'm just spitballing here. Say you want browserify to inline assets:

browserify --node --no-dg -t brfs cli.js | pkg --no-bundle --no-assets --output my-app

Or disable all these pkg features (avoiding an explosion of options):

browserify --node -t brfs cli.js | pkg --bare --output my-app

Alternatively, would it be possible to decouple the pkg bundler? I.e. write a lower-level tool that takes input code as a snapshot as-is?

[igorklopov]

Well, ok, i understand your points. But why do you need to place everything in one file? Is there a tradeoff when you keep all transformations of your tool, but output the same directory structure to build directory (instead of one file)? This is how pkg was intended to be used with transpilers like babel and flow. You can finally point pkg to build/index.js and you're done!

You will get native call stack. You will benefit from lazy require techniques. Etc.

[vweevers]

But why do you need to place everything in one file?

That's how browserify works. I admit, it's somewhat a case of "using what I know and love". Generally speaking though, I'm a fan of the unix philosophy. The benefit of a single file - or rather, a standard stream - is you can pipe it into whatever. For example: browserify [..] | derequire | uglifyjs | pkg.

As for transpilers, if I needed it (kind of beats the point of pkg, at least when targeting latest node), I'd probably do browserify -t babelify.

[github-actions]

This issue is stale because it has been open 90 days with no activity. Remove the stale label or comment or this will be closed in 5 days. To ignore this issue entirely you can add the no-stale label

[github-actions]

This issue is now closed due to inactivity, you can of course reopen or reference this issue if you see fit.