Easy enough - make a dummy implementation and plug that in when
there's no UI. Or a command-line one, whatever.

On 10/18/05, Pavel Krivanek <squeak1 at continentalbrno.cz> wrote:
>
> >On 10/18/05, Pavel Krivanek <squeak1 at continentalbrno.cz> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>3) The code is often not modular.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >That's being dealt with in 3.9a, for example by integrating ToolBuilder code.
> >
> >Yes, I think we want to go there (this has been discussed almost as
> >often as licensing...), and yes, we need to do a lot of refactoring
> >before we'll be there :-)
> >
> >
> Yes, ToolBuilder is important step forward but we have to prepare kernel
> for its absence (no UI at all), right?
>
> It's much easier to remove something from image than to think out the
> way how to put it safely back. This kernel image strictly removes all
> references to GUI etc. But I think it's not the right way. The image has
> to contain some slots for optional modules like ToolBuilder.
>
> -- Pavel
>
>