Object Interface
 

what is the object interface are using in linux?
can anyone tell me?
In Microsoft windows using Component Object Model (COM). It's a binary interface. So, i want to know object interface in linux.

Very few current Windows programs use the Component Object Model. COM was deprecated (in favor of .NET) years and years ago.

I'm not sure if I fully understand your question, but see if this helps:

http://stackoverflow.com/q/3063321

My personal answer is that Linux has no COM equivalent. COM was designed, very specifically, to deal with the ABI incompatibilities in the C++ compilers that were available for Windows at the time (1998).

Well, what does COM give you?

• A common ABI, so that you don't need to worry about which C++ compiler you use. Not an issue on Linux; just link against the same glibc libraries. And C++ compilers are much more standardized now than they were when COM was deemed to be needed for Windows.
• A way to call library functions from the programming language of your choice. Not an issue on Linux. Each programming language provides its own way to read the standardized ELF libraries.
• Interprocess communication. Linux gives you multiple choices for that.
• Memory management (and COM's implementation is one of the most difficult ones in existence). Use the implementation of your choice.

I have professional experience doing COM programming, so I know what I'm talking about. :)

Both COM and .NET are "vendor-supported infrastructures," which the (one and only) vendor of the system-in-question supports throughout their entire software architecture.

I-F you choose to "bite-off and accept 100% of the Microsoft® Way of Doing Everything," then these strategies might well be seen to have compelling advantages. But, since they are, themselves, the product of one vendor (and, until very recently, protected as a profound legal secret by that one vendor ...), they abruptly stop ... and lose much of their effectiveness therefore also their appeal ... when the "cross-vendor moment" is reached.

I think that it truly can't be argued that Microsoft achieved their lofty design goals for both systems. But, and necessarily, those solutions pre-suppose, "our way or no-way" with basically nothing in-between. I don't think they could have done it any other way, had they been inclined to, which of course they weren't. But, in a world where "Linux and so-forth aren't going away," the design is both a blessing and a curse.