Expose options object to allow passing in browsersync options about lite-server

[wsmd]

+1 👍

[festen]

+1

[johnpapa]

considering if we should expose each option in browsersync OR create an rc.config file that lite-server looks at to start up. thoughts?

I'm leaning towards the rc file.

[vikeen]

Doing an .rc file and explaining in the documentation that it links to the browser-sync configuration is good by me.

[EricLease]

I had seen this github issue when trying to come up with a solution for this question I posted on SO. To say I'm not active in the open source community would be an understatement. I'm just commenting here because I just addressed this issue (locally only) for the browser option used by browser-sync. I don't really care if an .rc is used or not, but you might want to consider the fact that the Angular 2 team is using lite-server in it's demo, and certain precedents are being established by default for people using that quick start guide (I would speculate that number is growing rapidly).

Examples:

1. --open is consumed and altered by lite-server before reaching browser-sync as part of the startPath, can cause a conflation with browser-sync's open option.
2. Some options, such as port are being passed through unchanged to browser-sync, as the same option name

[johnpapa]

Version 2.0 has been published. New API that follows the exact bs-config.js format for all overrides.