BSA — why no CosLifeCycle::LifeCycleObject for BioSequence ?

CosLifeCycle::LifeCycleObject, but BioSequence itself does not ?

Was this deemed to present too much constraints on BioSequence ?

The problem that Fabien Campagne <campagne@inka.mssm.edu> notes with this is
that a client of BioSequences can only call remove() on one of the
sub-classes, not on an un-extended BioSequence itself, nor on a different
sub-class that does not have a remove() operation (or maybe has it under a
different name or whatever).

He thinks this is bad design because without remove(), the client loose the
option of trying to be cooperative in the resource management of the
server. I have to agree on this point.

Or is inheriting from LifeCycleObject not there mainly of remove() ? In that
case, why the asymmetry between BioSequence and it's sub-class.

accepted