pivot-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noel Grandin <noelgran...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] WTKX binding
Date Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:34:11 GMT
Why exactly do we need that?

It seems to me that it should be possible to create a AppletBindable
interface,
and for the BindProcessor to add that interface to the relevant classes,
and inject some code (as it does currently).

Am I missing something?

Greg Brown wrote:
> We actually do need a Bindable base class in order to support binding
> in untrusted code. However, if we decide to drop support for that, we
> could move the bind() method to WTKXSerializer and eliminate Bindable.
> Is that consistent with what you are suggesting?
>
> On Jun 9, 2009, at 2:36 AM, Noel Grandin wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> How about
>> (3) Drop Bindable as a class altogether, and make the binding process
>> work without it.
>> I don't see that class really need to implement it anyhow.
>> Either that or make it an interface, and make the necessary classes
>> implement it.
>>
>> Regards, Noel.


Mime
View raw message