I agree with brent.
I think that we should minimize maintenance hell. For that I would  
integrate your architecture as a core one and get the tools updated  
in 3.9 to use it (and not optionally). Then this could be maintained  
as a package but this is a different issues (this means that changes  
to it would be tracked via MC).


On 17 juin 05, at 21:32, Brent Vukmer wrote:

>> This scenario doesn't seem ideal to me, but I could be missing
>> something. If ToolBuilder (which is quite small) was part of the
>> image, then it becomes the defacto API for dealing with prompts,
>> dialogs, menus, etc.

I think that it should be and the tools should be changed to be based  
on it.
This is like the event notification system.

> Seems like that was the point of all the work that you guys did..
>
>> Of course, if all the core tools are packages that depend on the
>> ToolBuilder package, then the problem goes away...
>
> I don't think we'll be at that point until we reach a minimal GUI-less
> image a la Spoon.

But this is the goal...and it is not against having your work as a  
foundation
for the tools. We will be in an evolution path for some years again  
before having packages all the way down.