Comments on: BasicHttpBinaryBinding for Silverlight http://blog.thekieners.com/2009/05/22/basichttpbinarybinding-for-silverlight/ Blog of Beat Kiener, containing my experiences, thoughts, comments and questions Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:16:08 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: beatkiener http://blog.thekieners.com/2009/05/22/basichttpbinarybinding-for-silverlight/#comment-125 beatkiener Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:08:05 +0000 http://bkiener.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/basichttpbinarybinding-for-silverlight/#comment-125 Hi mkamoski, Sorry for my late anwser. Well, SL3 doesn’t support MTOM. The difference is that binary encoding is proprietary and MTOM is standardized and interoperable. With binary encoding you get some serious performance gains over text encoding. In our projects, when binary encoding is enabled the reduction of the message size is about 30-40 percent. But keep in mind that binary encoding is a proprietary format and a WCF only feature. Some explanations about the code: My class BasicHttpBinaryBinding is compiled against Silverlight-CLR and the normal-CLR, because you will use it in both environments to declare your endpoints for binary message encoding. On server side (in the normal-CLR) the BasicHttpBinaryBinding must ensure that no other encoding such as Text or MTOM is in use or you get an exception. Hope this helps. Best regards, Beat Kiener Hi mkamoski,

Sorry for my late anwser.

Well, SL3 doesn’t support MTOM. The difference is that binary encoding is proprietary and MTOM is standardized and interoperable.
With binary encoding you get some serious performance gains over text encoding. In our projects, when binary encoding is enabled the reduction of the message size is about 30-40 percent. But keep in mind that binary encoding is a proprietary format and a WCF only feature.

Some explanations about the code:
My class BasicHttpBinaryBinding is compiled against Silverlight-CLR and the normal-CLR, because you will use it in both environments to declare your endpoints for binary message encoding. On server side (in the normal-CLR) the BasicHttpBinaryBinding must ensure that no other encoding such as Text or MTOM is in use or you get an exception.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,
Beat Kiener

]]> By: Mark Kamoski http://blog.thekieners.com/2009/05/22/basichttpbinarybinding-for-silverlight/#comment-119 Mark Kamoski Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:20:07 +0000 http://bkiener.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/basichttpbinarybinding-for-silverlight/#comment-119 Kieners -- Please help. (1) You mention MTOM but I have been reading elsewhere that SL3 does not support MTOM at all. Which is correct? Is your solution a workaround that allows SL3 to use MTOM? Is it is fact true that MTOM is supported intrinsically in SL3? Something else? (2) I have to move large chunks of data, large DOC or RTF or similar files, and I am wondering-- will the BasicBinaryBinding solution you note help to move that data faster? Do you have any recommendations for my case? Pelase advise. Thank you. -- Mark Kmaoski Kieners — Please help. (1) You mention MTOM but I have been reading elsewhere that SL3 does not support MTOM at all. Which is correct? Is your solution a workaround that allows SL3 to use MTOM? Is it is fact true that MTOM is supported intrinsically in SL3? Something else? (2) I have to move large chunks of data, large DOC or RTF or similar files, and I am wondering– will the BasicBinaryBinding solution you note help to move that data faster? Do you have any recommendations for my case? Pelase advise. Thank you. — Mark Kmaoski

]]>