Thuban more modular?

[Chris Barker]

Jonathan Coles wrote:

>why not make even our standard options behave as extensions for
>consistency? 
>  
>

>in general, thuban should provide a very basic framework onto which all
>the real functionality is added. the concept of a layer is part of that
>framework, but specific implementations of that concept are extensions,
>no?
>  
>
Yes!

I love this idea. From my first look at Thuban, I was hoping to find a 
toolbox with which to build a mapping application, rather than a 
particular mapping application. What it is now is that latter, I'd love 
to see it become more like the former.

-Chris