Hi, Sorry, this is an old mail, I still like to reply.
> > 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. I don't understand what you refer to. With 'defensive implementation' I mean 'only delete if we are 100% sure it is not used.'. > > 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. I think it's safer not to delete items that are still referenced in memory. Regards, Thomas
