# Sage 9 - Using config.json vs asset imports

**URL:** https://discourse.roots.io/t/sage-9-using-config-json-vs-asset-imports/11029
**Category:** sage
**Tags:** sage9
**Created:** 2017-11-29T05:19:55Z
**Posts:** 2

## Post 1 by @shane-cutts — 2017-11-29T05:19:55Z

So, in Sage 9 we’re able to add custom styles/scripts by adding them to config.json. We’re also able to add third-party assets by importing them into either the scss or js main files after a yarn add.

Is there a reason we only import when it is a third-party package/node\_module and add other custom files in the config.json?

If we create a custom script file like checkout.js, can we import that into the main.js and not add it into config.json?

What is the reasoning for the difference in adding assets either way?

---

## Post 2 by @Stephen — 2017-11-29T10:51:18Z

I don’t know if I’m qualified to answer, but I’ll have a go! My understanding is that it’s quite flexible and the choice depends on your needs… For example, I would add an entry to `config.json` if I wanted to have a separate file generated (eg. a large library that is only needed on certain pages and would be inefficient in the main JS bundle).

I’m still figuring out the JS ecosystem but I think third-party packages tend to be packaged differently to simple custom scripts we are used to making. The key seems to be the `export` statement in the JS files - that’s what allows them to be `import`ed by other scripts.

So if your custom `checkout.js` script does an `export`, you could `import` it elsewhere instead of having to add it to `config.json` (which simply seems to get Webpack to concatenate the files and therefore is suitable for older style JS files).