Im not too sure it, but I'll give it a shot.
I think calling all versions of Remove will remove the EJB[Local]Object from the server. If we take a look back at how the EJBObjects are created, they can be created either by
1. findByPrimaryKey
2. create(....)
1. From HFEJB, it says the the Container makes or finds an EJB Object for a specific entity, in this case #27. Thus, an EJB Object to #27 can only exist IF there is a corresponding row in the database. Now, if the row was deleted, then there shouldnt be a EJB Object for #27. BUT would there still be an EJB Object, but without the primary key on the object (so we can re-use it)? I dont think the container will go through all that trouble trying to remove the primary key linked to the EJB Object, and then putting it in some secondary storage, and then achieving it later for re-use. As we see, the EJB Object isnt pooled, as the context is (what i see from diagrams).
2. For creating a new row in the database, the container will create a new EJB Object, in between EJBCreate and EJBPostCreate.
Thus, if Remove didnt remove the EJB Object, I dont see the use of keeping it in the server, since in both scenerios, the container will create a newly create EJB Object.
Hope i didnt get all of it wrong
