2022-01-28 03:24:31 +09:00
|
|
|
/* Copyright 2022 Mozilla Foundation
|
2017-02-25 04:33:18 +09:00
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
|
|
|
|
* you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
|
|
|
|
* You may obtain a copy of the License at
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
|
|
|
|
* distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
|
|
|
|
* WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
|
|
|
|
* See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
|
|
|
|
* limitations under the License.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2023-11-04 20:57:57 +09:00
|
|
|
/* eslint-disable import/no-unresolved */
|
[api-minor] Remove the Webpack-only npm dependencies from `pdfjs-dist` (PR 11418 follow-up)
Currently *all* users of `pdfjs-dist` are forced to install the `webpack` and `worker-loader` packages, despite the fact that they are *only* relevant if the `webpack.js` file is being used (with a custom Webpack build).
This really doesn't seem great, especially since those packages are the only remaining dependencies in the `pdfjs-dist` library, and it thus seem more reasonable overall that Webpack users handle those dependencies themselves.
To prevent unnecessarily cryptic runtime failures, when people update to newer `pdfjs-dist` versions, the `webpack.js` file was updated to explicitly check for the existence of the `worker-loader` package and error otherwise.
Furthermore, note that `webpack` was only listed as a dependency because of the `worker-loader` package itself (see issue 9248).
Obviously these changes may not be seen as great by Webpack users who rely on `pdfjs-dist`, since it forces them to handle the dependencies themselves, however it should improve things considerably for "general" users of `pdfjs-dist` by not burdening them with unnecessary dependencies.
These sort of changes are also in line with other recent changes, see PR 11418, which removed built-in fake worker loader code for specific JS builders/bundlers/frameworks. This work was prompted not only by a desire to simplify/clean-up old code, but also to lessen future support burden since the PDF.js contributors cannot be assumed to be experts in various JS bundlers.
2020-01-06 02:26:01 +09:00
|
|
|
|
2023-11-04 20:57:57 +09:00
|
|
|
import { GlobalWorkerOptions } from "./build/pdf.mjs";
|
2017-05-27 00:46:41 +09:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (typeof window !== "undefined" && "Worker" in window) {
|
2023-11-04 20:57:57 +09:00
|
|
|
GlobalWorkerOptions.workerPort = new Worker(
|
[api-major] Output JavaScript modules in the builds (issue 10317)
At this point in time all browsers, and also Node.js, support standard `import`/`export` statements and we can now finally consider outputting modern JavaScript modules in the builds.[1]
In order for this to work we can *only* use proper `import`/`export` statements throughout the main code-base, and (as expected) our Node.js support made this much more complicated since both the official builds and the GitHub Actions-based tests must keep working.[2]
One remaining issue is that the `pdf.scripting.js` file cannot be built as a JavaScript module, since doing so breaks PDF scripting.
Note that my initial goal was to try and split these changes into a couple of commits, however that unfortunately didn't really work since it turned out to be difficult for smaller patches to work correctly and pass (all) tests that way.[3]
This is a classic case of every change requiring a couple of other changes, with each of those changes requiring further changes in turn and the size/scope quickly increasing as a result.
One possible "issue" with these changes is that we'll now only output JavaScript modules in the builds, which could perhaps be a problem with older tools. However it unfortunately seems far too complicated/time-consuming for us to attempt to support both the old and modern module formats, hence the alternative would be to do "nothing" here and just keep our "old" builds.[4]
---
[1] The final blocker was module support in workers in Firefox, which was implemented in Firefox 114; please see https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Statements/import#browser_compatibility
[2] It's probably possible to further improve/simplify especially the Node.js-specific code, but it does appear to work as-is.
[3] Having partially "broken" patches, that fail tests, as part of the commit history is *really not* a good idea in general.
[4] Outputting JavaScript modules was first requested almost five years ago, see issue 10317, and nowadays there *should* be much better support for JavaScript modules in various tools.
2023-09-28 20:00:10 +09:00
|
|
|
new URL("./build/pdf.worker.mjs", import.meta.url),
|
|
|
|
{ type: "module" }
|
2022-09-13 10:40:58 +09:00
|
|
|
);
|
2017-05-27 00:46:41 +09:00
|
|
|
}
|
2017-02-25 04:33:18 +09:00
|
|
|
|
2023-11-04 20:57:57 +09:00
|
|
|
export * from "./build/pdf.mjs";
|