References: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jigsaw/spec/issues/#MutableConfigurations http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jigsaw/spec/issues/#LazyConfigurationAndInstantiation http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jigsaw/spec/issues/#CyclicDependences http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jigsaw/spec/issues/#DiscardableModules In light of Thomas Watson's initial attempt to achieve bidirectional interoperation between OSGi and JPMS [1], my subsequent suggestion that this can be done indirectly with the present design by modeling a dynamic module as a sequence of JPMS modules over time [2] if given a solution to #NonHierarchicalLayers [3], and then Watson's validation of that approach [4], it appears that we no longer have any need to address the above four issues, at least as far as OSGi is concerned. David: Is this approach workable for JBoss Modules as well? If so then I'd like to close these issues out; if not then I'd like to understand if there are additional, smaller changes that would make this approach acceptable while avoiding the complexity of complete solutions to these issues. - Mark [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jpms-spec-comments/2016-August/000062.html, or http://blog.osgi.org/2016/08/osgi-with-java-modules-all-way-down.html [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jpms-spec-experts/2016-October/000410.html [3] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jpms-spec-experts/2016-October/000442.html [4] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jpms-spec-experts/2016-November/000449.html