[Tainnor]

In the sense that in Java (almost) everything is an object, a jOOQ query must of course return an object (such as a Record2<String, String>), but unlike Hibernate or AR, jOOQ doesn't enforce a 1:1 mapping between domain objects and tables, especially if you turn off POJO generation - at my last company, we had some custom mapping from a table to several subclasses of a sealed class depending on certain fields in the table - and you can even split a single class into two tables etc.

[zzzeek]

> In the sense that in Java (almost) everything is an object,

no, this is misleading. There are different kinds of objects. if you use JDBC to run a query you get back something like a Row object (sorry I havent done JDBC since the 1990s) - the "Row" like object does not declaratively define the fields of the row, the fields and the data of each field are all data. however when you get back POJOs, as you say, these declaratively define the fields that are "mapped" to a column. if jOOQ does this, it's an ORM. ORM has nothing to do with writing SQL - that's called a "SQL builder". the ORM is about marshalling data from POJO-style objects to and from relational database rows.

[Tainnor]

There are different ways of using jOOQ, some of them being more like an ORM (but still more low-level than Hibernate) and others less so. You can use the API in such a way that it just returns a general tuple object holding the result from your query (called Record1<T>, Record2<T1, T2>, etc.). This is especially useful when fetching from multiple tables. You can also use codegen to auto-create POJOs and mapping code, but this is not required.