> Yes, GC must be implemented. What I wanted to say was: I think it is > better at this stage if the implementation is defensive.
I agree, but the fact that it is possible to loose all the new binary content is not defensive. >> Regarding the scenario I presented, what I would like to know is if we >> consider it an acceptable >> risk or not. I'm still not sure about this issue. > > I think it is too risky to remove the transient identifier when the > item is stored in the persistence manager. Why is that? Maybe we can come up with a better way to prevent accidental deletions in the GC. Regards, Esteban Franqueiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
