> I'll leave it to your judgement as I need to delegate on OSGi matters but I hope the ServiceManager doesn't get too complex.

Why does it get too complex? If anything we use it for what it is for and we've already discussed the potential need to need multiple service implementations. 

> If it doesn't fit the role with minimal changes I'd rather maintain two different things, each one focused on doing its very specific thing in the best and simplest way.

The question here is whether we can agree that a _BridgeProvider_ can be seen as a service. If so, the ServiceManager fits the role. If you want to do a dedicated service loader implementation just for _BridgeProvider_ you would need to make it pluggable (to support OSGi in the long run) and you effectively duplicate code from the _ServiceManager_.