Yep, that sounds about right...

http://bugs.jquery.com/ticket/13760

This is what we expected. jQuery is not meant to be loaded with Node alone as it doesn't work without the DOM. It needs something like jsdom to export a window object. That being said, we could provide limited support by doing window || this in the outro, but we couldn't guarantee it's functionality.

I doubt it would get very far even if window was defined as this. We're not trying to make jQuery work standalone in the Node environment, just to make it more convenient to use as a module with things like jsdom. I'll explain that a bit better in the next blog announcement.

Just a thought ... what if we defined the exports like this so window didn't have to be global? Makes the invocation more error prone but would emphasize the dependency.

module.exports = function( w ){

   // If user passed in a window object, use it;
   // otherwise keep using the IIFE window variable
   if ( w ) {
      window = w;
   }
   ...
}
...
// User should do the require like this, passing in a
// suitably faked but functional window object.
var $ = require( "jquery" )( window );

I agree that having window in general, maybe better error message?

In my case I wanted to use jQuery deferred from node.

@gleb, in that case you want this: https://github.com/jaubourg/jquery-deferred-for-node

Good idea Dave. I'd prefer to pass the right window to the IIFE. Maybe something like this:

https://github.com/timmywil/jquery/compare/13768

@timmywill Seems like a reasonable solution*, but I still want Domenic to chime in.

Passing window || this instead of window to IIFE would still break in the very beginning, on location = window.location in core.js:13 so this solves nothing really.

It's probably better to wait for Domenic on this instead of second-guessing how would people actually use it, though I like the last proposed idea.

I've emailed Domenic.

I'll go ahead and take this one and follow up later.

I think jQuery should stay as it is in 2.0. In particular, I think the proposed var $ = require( "jquery" )( window ) idea is bad.

The use case that's most important, in my opinion, is people using browserify or one of the many other CommonJS-in-the-browser systems. For those people, they just want var $ = require("jquery") to work; they don't want to pass in window, or even let defaults take over and do var $ = require("jquery")().

Another consideration is that jQuery should present a uniform interface to all module systems. AMD and the global-object "module system" both present jQuery as the $ function. Presumably when ES6 modules start coming to browsers, jQuery will do the same for those. CommonJS should be no different.

Note that in jsdom, jQuery is always run within the context of a global environment that has a window anyway, so that use case also wants the usual jQuery behavior. The proposed var $ = require("jquery")(window) would be a nice convenient syntax in some cases, but would break all cases that try to use jQuery as it exists today, as something that relies on window as an ambient variable.

Perhaps the best of both worlds, *if* this is an important use case, would be

// works in browserify etc., throws in Node.js
// unless of course you do .
var $ = require("jquery");

// for convenient jsdom/Node.js usage:
var window = jsdom.createWindow();
var $ = require("jquery").fromWindow(window);

But again I don't think this is terribly important; given the focus on byte-saving around here, I can't imagine it would pass muster.

@domenic: Sounds reasonable. One minor note.

We probably couldn't provide something like .fromWindow unless we did an early return where no window was available (in which case require("jquery") would not return anything except some object containing .fromWindow. That's already pretty ugly as the export would again be inconsistent. Judging from your comment as a whole, it seems the best solution is to leave 2.0 the way it is and suggest defining the window globally before requiring jQuery.

@timmywil yeah, I wasn't sure how much initialization require("jquery") would do. In theory since $ is just a function, it could be no initialization, right? So window wouldn't actually be used until you called the function, e.g. $(".whatever") or $("<div>"). But I imagine in reality things are more complicated.

@domenic We do some support tests at the time of loading. Also, there's some initial caching going on (like location = window.location) amongst other things so, yeah, it's not so simple.

Closing wontfix, but we should document this somewhere. Opened api issue https://github.com/jquery/api.jquery.com/issues/296

I think we should discuss this further. Julian proposed having a custom build for NPM.

@domenic: Knowing that jQuery needs a window at initialization time, is this looking any better to you?

https://github.com/timmywil/jquery/compare/13768

Bottom line is jQuery can't be included (not just used) without a window, so making that explicit in the require call makes sense to me.

Support CommonJS environments by accentuating the need for a window with a document. Fixes #13768.

Changeset: 1f67d07c60c37e60052db37fc03d42af482c2d03