5 comments

Add a comment…

Sign in

prestine

Your email address

Check!

invalid email

(thinking…)

Reset

or sign in with

• 
• 

UserVoice password

Forgot password?

Create a password

Your name

I agree to the terms of service

Signed in as (Sign out)

Close

Close

Post comment Submitting...

• Glenn Gailey commented  ·  May 31, 2011 1:24 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  This is a big deal for Windows Phone-based OData apps as there is literally no workaround to enable gzip. Even the hacks that work for WCF clients in Silverlight can't be used with the OData client for Windows Phone, and phone customers are (for obvious reasons) very sensitive to network utilization.

• Asbjørn Ulsberg commented  ·  April 2, 2011 4:33 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  WCF creates the client-side proxy and if it doesn't include "Accept-Encoding: gzip", this is something that has to be enabled in WCF for the client-side proxy. For the server-side, enabling this in IIS will probably be sufficient.

• Hong commented  ·  January 18, 2011 11:21 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  HTTP protocol defines mechanism to negotiate compression between client and server. OData should leverage the existing industory standard.
  sample headers of request:
  Accept-Encoding="gzip, compress"
  Content-Encoding="gzip"
  sample header of response:
  Content-Encoding="gzip"

• Dave Russell commented  ·  September 20, 2010 5:54 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I believe the currently generated client-side proxy sends requests that don't pass the "Supports GZIP / DEFLATE" headers - and that there is no exposed client-side hook that lets you override this behaviour - regardless of whether the transport supports it or not.

• Kristofer Andersson commented  ·  September 12, 2010 11:42 p.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  umm, the choice to use gzip is a transport level thing, configurable in IIS. No need to deal with that at the service level IMO...(?)