>Jim,
>
>>Ther eis nothing OO about either set oriented or record oriented databases.
>
>Come on jim, you know better. Sure there are features within database which are OO. Inheritance within views for example. a Table can be seen as a object, a field as a field. I'm noet arguing that a database is fully OO, but there are certainly features to find which are OO.
>

Walter,

On this one I have to disagree with you totally. OO is more than a few qualities, which by the way are mostly able to be emulated in procedural code.

OO's fundamental concept is that all things are objects with data and behavior encapsulated in them. RDBMS does not do this. With RDBMS the data is in one place oriented by the entity and the behavior is in another place. An OO database would allow me to create a stored object representing ACME Corp as a sub class of the customer class. With an RDBMS I have to instantiate the class and then populate it with data from a table. Two different operations, I don't simply call for the ACME object.

One of the big areas of confusion is rooted in the similarities of the relational model and the object model. The problem is that while in some areas they are similar they are by far not the same.