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.
