public interface IGetEmployee
{
[OperationContract(Name = "GetEmployeeDetailsById")]
List
[OperationContract(Name = "GetEmployeeDetailsByName")]
List
}
If we want to summarize in one sentence, the difference between WsHttpBinding
and BasicHttpBinding
is that WsHttpBinding
supports WS-* specification. WS-* specifications are nothing but standards to extend web service capabilities.
Below is a detailed comparison table between both the entities from security, compatibility, reliability and SOAP version perspective.
Criteria | BasicHttpBinding | WsHttpBinding |
Security support | This supports the old ASMX style, i.e. WS-BasicProfile 1.1. | This exposes web services using WS-* specifications. |
Compatibility | This is aimed for clients who do not have .NET 3.0 installed and it supports wider ranges of clients. Many of the clients like Windows 2000 still do not run .NET 3.0. So older version of .NET can consume this service. | As its built using WS-* specifications, it does not support wider ranges of client and it cannot be consumed by older .NET version less than 3 version. |
Soap version | SOAP 1.1 | SOAP 1.2 and WS-Addressing specification. |
Reliable messaging | Not supported. In other words, if a client fires two or three calls you really do not know if they will return back in the same order. | Supported as it supports WS-* specifications. |
Default security options | By default, there is no security provided for messages when the client calls happen. In other words, data is sent as plain text. | As |
Security options |
|
|
One of the biggest differences you must have noticed is the security aspect. By default, BasicHttpBinding
sends data in plain text while WsHttpBinding
sends it in encrypted and secured manner.
Transactions provide a way to group a set of actions or operations into a single indivisible unit of execution. A transaction is a collection of operations with the following properties:
There are multiple aspects of communication with any given service, and there are many possible communication patterns: messages can be synchronous request/reply or asynchronous fire-and-forget; messages can be bidirectional; messages can be delivered immediately or queued; and the queues can be durable or volatile. There are many possible transport protocols for the messages, such as HTTP (or HTTPS), TCP, P2P (peer network), IPC (named pipes), or MSMQ. There are a few possible message encoding options: you can chose plain text to enable interoperability, binary encoding to optimize performance, or MTOM (Message Transport Optimization Mechanism) for large payloads. There are a few options for securing messages: you can choose not to secure them at all, to provide transport-level security only, to provide message-level privacy and security, and of course there are numerous ways for authenticating and authorizing the clients. Message delivery might be unreliable or reliable end-to-end across intermediaries and dropped connections, and the messages might be processed in the order they were sent or in the order they were received. Your service might need to interoperate with other services or clients that are only aware of the basic web service protocol, or they may be capable of using the score of WS-* modern protocols such as WS-Security and WS-Atomic Transactions. Your service may need to interoperate with legacy clients over raw MSMQ messages, or you may want to restrict your service to interoperate only with another WCF service or client.
If you start counting all the possible communication and interaction options, the number of permutations is probably in the tens of thousands. Some of those choices may be mutually exclusive, and some may mandate other choices. Clearly, both the client and the service must be aligned on all these options in order to communicate properly. Managing this level of complexity adds no business value to most applications, and yet the productivity and quality implications of making the wrong decisions are severe.
To simplify these choices and make them more manageable, WCF groups together a set of such communication aspects in bindings. A binding is merely a consistent, canned set of choices regarding the transport protocol, message encoding, communication pattern, reliability, security, transaction propagation, and interoperability. Ideally, you would extract all these "plumbing" aspects out of your service code and allow the service to focus solely on the implementation of the business logic. Binding enables you to use the same service logic over drastically different plumbing.
You can use the WCF-provided bindings as is, you can tweak their properties, or you can write your own custom bindings from scratch. The service publishes its choice of binding in its metadata, enabling clients to query for the type and specific properties of the binding because the client must use the exact same binding values as the service. A single service can support multiple bindings on separate addresses.
WCF defines nine standard bindings: