What benefit does MSDN article on CoRevokeClassObject talk about?

Question

MSDN article on CoRevokeGetClassObject() says that when the COM server calls it the class object referenced by clients is not released. Then the following comes:

If other clients still have pointers to the class object and have caused the reference >count to be incremented by calls to IUnknown::AddRef, the reference count will not be >zero. When this occurs, applications may benefit if subsequent calls (with the obvious >exceptions of IUnknown::AddRef and IUnknown::Release) to the class object fail.

What is meant by "applications may benefit"? The class object is not released, but creation requests fail. Sounds reasonable but where's the benefit?

Answer 1

Yeah, it's a pretty strange turn of words...

I think what they're trying to say is that clients may end up in a tricky situation if they create objects from a server that just called CoRevokeClassObjects , because it's likely it'll disappear very soon ( CoRevokeClassObjects is routinely called when a server is shut down.)

So, if the activation calls ( IClassFactory::CreateInstance ) don't fail, the client will get an interface pointer back, and as soon as they call a method on it, they'll get an error from the RPC layer that the server is gone.

I suppose that's 'beneficial' in some way :-)

That said, I'm not sure how to detect the case where IUnknown::Release is called via CoRevokeClassObjects vs some other client, but I suppose the code revoking the factories could set some global state or per-factory state that they can check before letting creation requests come through.