Fixed broken pointerevent handling when pointerType = "pen"

[arodic]

Recent transition to pointerevents broke all examples when using a pen such as Wacom stylus for example.

[Mugen87]

You have to modify the files in examples/js and generate the jsm modules with node utils/modularize.js.

[arodic]

I understand this is an established workflow and this has been discussed already, but It feels quite backwards to keep doing that. Generated modules have a clear notice:

As part of the transition to ES6 Modules, the files in 'examples/js' were deprecated in May 2020 (r117)

As we already use examples/jsm in examples and we are 3 releases beyond r117, shouldn't the workflow be the other way around?

[DefinitelyMaybe]

@arodic its a transition not an instant switch

[arodic]

@DefinitelyMaybe what has changed on May 2020 (r117) regarding the transition?

[Mugen87]

We have to do this only for three more month. After that, examples/js will be deleted anyway. TBH, I think it's a waste if we start discussing this topic again. So please stick to the current workflow. And be patient^^.

[mrdoob]

Thanks!

[mrdoob]

As we already use examples/jsm in examples and we are 3 releases beyond r117, shouldn't the workflow be the other way around?

Yes it should.

[Mugen87]

Yes it should.

Oh, it seems there is a misunderstanding. I thought we've only agreed to remove the files at the end of the year and don't add new files to exampels/js. However, they still receive updates/bug fixes until then. When I remember correctly, deprecated loaders like JSONLoader were still updated until they were completely removed.

[mrdoob]

I've been seeing that quite like a lot of people include https://threejs.org/examples/js/* in their codepens, etc. It's unfortunate, but I still think we should remove these. It's a bad practice and would have broken eventually anyway.

I was referring to the question on whether we should be modifying examples/jsm files and generate examples/js files instead. I do agree that we should be doing that instead.

I think @donmccurdy had a PR that did that but I have not been able to study it and test it.

[donmccurdy]

My PR would have generated files like examples/js in the browser if users wanted to download them from the new documentation UI section proposed in #18778, but the examples/js files wouldn't be kept in the github repo or npm package.

It sounds like you're saying we should be "modifying examples/jsm files and generate examples/js" now, just for October – December, keeping both in GitHub? My PR didn't do that, but I think one of @gkjohnson's suggestions did. If we're only 3 months from deleting this folder, though, is it worth the trouble to do this now?

[gkjohnson]

My PR didn't do that, but I think one of @gkjohnson's suggestions did.

That was #16920 but I think I'm in agreement with @donmccurdy and @Mugen87 -- at this point we should just wait out the 3 months if we're truly going to get rid of the /js folder. Another option is to just stop updating the /js files entirely for the next three months before removing them if the dev process of maintaining them right now is too much of a pain.