Possible breaking changes caused by Tibet binding ideas

We're continuing to explore the Tibet binding ideas - discussed in http://slodge.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/tibet-binding.html


These ideas should be an add-on to MvvmCross - so they will not break existing v3 Swiss or fluent binding code.


However, if anyone is using Json binding, or if they are directly using the MvxSerializableBindingDescription or MvxBindingDescription structures, then the current approach might cause some issues.


In order to gauge whether this is a problem, please get in touch via comments or twitter if anyone is currently using v3 and is currently:

• using Json format binding
• directly accessing MvxSerializableBindingDescription 
• or directly accessing MvxeBindingDescription

If this turns out to be anything other than a very, very small issue, then we'll change our approach - we'll make Tibet a totally separate module rather than building it on top of Swiss.


So.... please let me know if you fall into this category of user - I'm keen to stick to my promise of making v3 stable.