feat(bundle): migrate to webpack

[Delagen]

Purpose / Goal

Simple make split bundles with entries in webpack.config.js
Use latest features of ECMAScript language without any hacks

Type

Please mention the type of PR

[ ]Bug Fix
[x]Refactoring / Technology upgrade
[ ]New Feature

Note : Please ensure that you've read contribution guidelines before raising this PR.

[coveralls]

Coverage remained the same at 97.487% when pulling 5f40401 on Delagen:webpack into e28cc29 on NaturalIntelligence:master.

[Delagen]

I think to remove outdated node versions. All versions before 8 LTS reach EOL )

[amitguptagwl]

Thanks @Delagen . Though moving to webpack will enable us splitting this package in small browser bundles, using ECMAScript latest syntax in the code etc, I wanted to check few things before merging this PR

1. Need of generating parser.node.js.
2. Need of pointing main script to lib/parser.node.js.
3. Impact on typescript definitions.
4. impact on vscode debugging

[Delagen]

1. Cause NodeJS can miss some function babel can provide
2. Because of 1
3. No impact
4. Don't know

[amitguptagwl]

Cause NodeJS can miss some function babel can provide

For example? are we using any such function? As this module is pretty stable I see less features to be implemented in the future.

[Delagen]

For example ES2015 modules, async/await by default or something else... Need to check tables

[amitguptagwl]

async/await is supported by node js. And we're not using that in our module anywhere. Can you please share some reference link where I can check those features? I couldn't find it through google.

[Delagen]

https://node.green/

[Delagen]

Many browser modules use ES2015 module model for efficient tree shaking

[Delagen]

I don't think that NodeJS bundle really needed at this time, but creating it can offer support more older versions, but with lack of some travis testing, or we can make some tweaks )

[Delagen]

I you argue for removing it, I can fix it )

[amitguptagwl]

@Delagen With my own experience and under the guidance of my supervisors I've learnt that Plan for future but code for current . So yes please remove the part that is not expected to be used soon.

[Delagen]

Current is different for someone ) Some enterprise projects can use 0.12.x version or even older )
So should I remove this node bundle?

[amitguptagwl]

Yes please

[amitguptagwl]

Any particular reason to remove 7, 9?

[amitguptagwl]

Is there any particular reason to remove node version 7 & 9 from travis configuration?

[Delagen]

They are not supported any more https://github.com/nodejs/Release#release-schedule

[Delagen]

Then I think we need to create some entry points for building multiple bundles

[amitguptagwl]

Yes. And I'm thinking to remove XML to Nimn transformation as Nimn seems duplicate of Google's protobuf.

[Zalastax]

This might be too late since it's already merged, but shouldn't rollup have been preferred over webpack, given that this is a library? Webpack has some overhead that rollup doesn't is my concern. It shouldn't be difficult to switch in the future though so might be best to keep with the flow you have going.

[amitguptagwl]

@Zalastax Thanks . It seems interesting. We can have a look. Raising an issue so it doesn't skip