> With GoshawkDB it really is up to the client as to what API you offer.
So GoshawkDB is not an object database and apparently never will. That's
OK, but don't call it object store. It's misleading, as it uses
already-established term for something different, which also already has
a name.
Mind you, in several programming languages objects can have instance-specific
methods (Ruby and Python being notable examples). This alone makes object
more than merely a sum of a predefined structure having data fields and (also
predefined) schema having functions to operate on those fields.
Thanks for the link. Whilst I'm not arguing with your point, I believe I've never used the term "object database" to describe GoshawkDB, only "object store". I guess I'm struggling to find a more accurate term than "object store" to describe GoshawkDB. I don't like "document store", as to me "document" tends to be something human readable.
