hi carsten, > Ok, we can still argue about the name though... :) I would call it just > "node" as we already have "resource"
i agree that node would be intuitive. there are really two issues why i personally would mildly favor "currentNode". a) when working with jcr "node" is a very frequently used local variable (at least in my code ;) ) and we could avoid some collisions. b) in ujax on the client side we already called it "currentNode" and it is also called currentNode granted that both of these reason make for a rather weak bias, i am happy to be convinced otherwise. regards, david
