I think we should reconsider this name, since this is not actually playing any "bridge" role itself... it's really just a convenience for maintaining the associated channel and endpoint for lifecycle management. If we do add direction here (INBOUND or OUTBOUND), it would provide a bit more meaning, and it would allow us to simplify some code elsewhere (e.g. reducing the "in" and "out" strings in code currently and some of the conditional logic).

All that said, we are also considering renaming the ChannelRegistry itself (and its implementations), possibly as MessageBus, since that more accurately represents its role: a mechanism for connecting local channels to a shared transport (potentially distributed). If we make that change, then this class could be renamed "BusConnection" or something along those lines. It's probably worth a new story though, and leaving this as is for this PR. I just wanted to get the thought out there.