I won't give you an accurate answer, since you can find it as much as me if you look into the source code. The guidelines for rewriting our own classes are: - it has to be absolutely necessary (Linq to SQL classes doesn't provide the required functionality) - when doing so, our classes offer usually identical features (sometimes more, in DbLinq extended build).
Originally, it starts from DataContext: DbLinq DataContext has its own structures, so we needed our own. Then, the Table<> had to reference its owner DataContext, etc. Pascal. jabber/gtalk: [email protected] msn: [email protected] On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 16:33, Giacomo Tesio <[email protected]> wrote: > Why DbLinq has it's own implementation of such types? > > Is it about their implementation? > > > Giacomo > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DbLinq" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/dblinq?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
