On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Brian Stansberry <brian.stansberry@redhat.com> wrote:

2) A capability cannot provide services of > 1 value type. It's nice if
capabilities can represent something that's meaningful to an end user,
and there's no reason why something that's meaningful to an end user
might not expose more than one service to other capabilities. If we
limit capabilities to exposing a single service, then we may end up with
multiple capabilities. See [2] for an example case, where a proposed
"org.wildfly.iiop" (nice and simple for an end user to understand)
installs two services, an ORB and a NamingContextExt.

In cases like this capability should still be one service that would than depend on two or more services.

and consumer of capability would just get the "aggregator" capability that would than allow access

to other two services (or properties on service)