I can say I have an object-oriented database. Am I wrong? Please help me.

[AliRezaGoogle]

Hi group
There are many RELATIONAL databases like MS SQL server. They are not
called object oriented database because their base concept is row and
not object. But suppose following scenario:

I have a class in my application called Student. I have another class
called Course and another class Std_Crs which maintains relations
between Student objects and Course objects. I have designed and
implemented 3 tables exactly as their corresponding class in my
database. All classes are equivalent with their corresponding tables.
I mean I have columns as object properties and triggers and stored
procedures as object methods so I think I have objects in my db and I
can call my db an oo-db. I think just faces of my objects are changed
to columns. I am confused about this matter. Am I wrong? Do I have
really an oo-db?

 

[Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]]

From what I see, no. An OO-DB is one where you could access the objects
as objects in the database without having to do all the relational stuff
yourself. So in this case, you would be able to access the courses for the
student in the queries by accessing a property off the student.

Ultimately, its still an RMDB, just made to work in an OO world (which
isn't a bad thing at all).

 

[Cor Ligthert[MVP]]

Let me try to tell it in this way.

Of course you have an object oriented database, as every thing is an object.

However it has in my opinion nothing to do with OO or OOP programming, those
are using Classes to create well described objects which have a consistent
content and behaviour in the way as they are described in classes and you
are not able to change that behaviour in another way then using the by the
class given public properties.

In the case of your database you can direct change your objects in the SQL
database by an SQL procedure or either just using the designer.

Cor