basicHttpBinding vs wsHttpBinding

Question

In a WCF endpoint, what is the difference between basicHttpBinding and wsHttpBinding? When should each be used?

Solution 1

Ton of material on that out there - just google for "WCF basicHttpBinding wsHttpBinding".

You'll find amongst others:

• WCF : BasicHttpBinding compared to WSHttpBinding at SOAP packet level.
• Difference between BasicHttpBinding and WsHttpBinding and many, many more!

Very basically:

• basicHttp is SOAP 1.1, wsHttp is SOAP 1.2 (they're quite different, esp. when it comes to SOAP faults)
• basic is - very basic. It's compatible with old-style ASMX ASP.NET webservices and just about any other web service stack out there
• basic is very limited in its security settings
• wsHttp is an implementation of a gazillion WS-* standards, and offers much more features: security, reliable messaging, transaction support, duplex communications and a whole host more.
• wsHttp is the much "heavier" and more extensive protocol, less compatible, less nimble

Solution 2

wsHttpBinding is more secure and reliable than basicHttpBinding. If great compatibility is not required, wsHttpBinding is the choice.

Ref: BasicHttpBinding vs WSHttpBinding

BasicHttpBinding:

1. WS-I Basic Profile 1.1 specification (Old ASMX style)
2. It supports SOAP 1.1 as a messaging protocol
3. Doesn’t support WS-Security, and the entire payload is sent in plain text.
4. Offers great level of interoperability.

WSHttpBinding:

1. Allows you to use various WS-* specifications such as WS-Security 1.1, WS-Reliable Messaging etc
2. It supports SOAP 1.2 as a messaging protocol
3. As its built using WS-* specifications, it does not support wider ranges of client.

Comments

[marc_s]

@IvanP: what about this answer needs to be improved? I've tried to show the main differences between those two bindings - what do you think is missing from this answer?

[IvanP]

Well two links are down and your advice about google is loopback. Besides, give some more info if you can and you did not answer when each should be used.

[Nelson Rothermel]

"Ton of material" might be a suggestion to look beyond the one search result that points back to this question, which of course probably didn't exist when he answered. The three links were just examples of what he found in the 10 seconds he searched. When each should be used really comes down to what features you need of which he listed several. If you need compatibility or speed, go with basicHttp, if you need features, go with wsHttp. It's really that simple.