basicHttpBinding vs wsHttpBinding [duplicate]

Answer 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

Answer 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.