>> 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.

I think that we should go in that direction stepwise.
So any architectural improvements going in that direction are  
important. This will be long but this is important to go that way.
And ToolBuilder, services are part of the big pictures to be able to  
get a more modular system.
So your feedback and help to making that happen is really important.

Stef