Many people would define an object as something that has externally visible behavior and internally hidden _data_. Objects could never be compared to each other for equality, because one could not access the internal data, only its public behavior. However, Java records can be compared for equality which objects would not.
Java records also cannot be extended from. Inheritance is the only uniquely OOP feature, which doesn't apply here either.
So I'm not sure that Java records are an object-oriented construct. First, the precise definition of OO should be established, and then we'll see
Records can have no state - compared to regular classes - so they are an anti-OOP feature.
Oh, because your "FooWidgetController", "FooWidgetService", "FooWidgetRepository" are all real world things?
This is just data modeling, has nothing to do with OOP.
Summary by Wikipedia is pretty good:
>Object-oriented programming (OOP) is a programming paradigm based on the concept of objects,[1] which can contain data and code: data in the form of fields (often known as attributes or properties), and code in the form of procedures (often known as methods). In OOP, computer programs are designed by making them out of objects that interact with one another.
But also, from same wikipedia page:
>Attempts to find a consensus definition or theory behind objects have not proven very successful (however, see Abadi & Cardelli, A Theory of Objects[68] for formal definitions of many OOP concepts and constructs), and often diverge widely. For example, some definitions focus on mental activities, and some on program structuring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming
But I also recommend reading the chapter on objects from "Programming Languages: Application and Interpretation" by Shriram Krishnamurthi. https://www.plai.org/3/2/PLAI%20Version%203.2.2%20electronic...
One sentence summary there is: "Objects — the bundling of data with operations over them — are a generalization of closures."