I was going through Microsoft docs about COM where the disadvantages of using explicit object monitoring systems for managing the lifetime of COM objects are mentioned:

"Furthermore, a mechanism based on explicit monitoring would not tend to scale toward many thousands or millions of objects."

As I am new to this field I don't quite get what is meant by that. Can anyone explain what this means in a simpler sense? To be specific, why wouldn't such a mechanism tend to scale toward many thousands of objects? Doesn't more objects imply more resources required for the monitoring system?


The whole paragraph containing this sentence is just a blurb telling how costly it would be if the object needed to communicate continuously with its users to find if it needs to delete itself. The communication cost would be too high in the case of many users.

The next paragraph says how wonderful it would be if the users are the ones that will tell the object if they disconnected.

  • I am still a little bit confused. I get that the cost of an external mechanism for communication increase with an increase in user or objects. Wouldn't the system be then said to scale towards the number of objects/users, instead of "not scale" towards it? – Chief A Oct 24 '18 at 9:48
  • It scales, only with less communications. – harrymc Oct 24 '18 at 9:51
  • Pardon my intrusive nature towards the tiniest bit of information, but am I correct in assuming that by "would not tend to scale" the sentence is referring to the system's inability to reduce resource requirements when the number of objects is large. – Chief A Oct 24 '18 at 9:59
  • No, to excessive network messaging. – harrymc Oct 24 '18 at 10:03

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.