File APIs for Java Developers
Manipulate DOC, XLS, PPT, PDF and many others from your application.
The moose likes Web Services and the fly likes WS-I vs. SOAP Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login

Win a copy of REST with Spring (video course) this week in the Spring forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Java » Web Services
Bookmark "WS-I vs. SOAP" Watch "WS-I vs. SOAP" New topic


Rob Gugrel

Joined: Sep 26, 2005
Posts: 9
Hi Christopher and Ramesh!

Could you please explain the difference (and which is better) between the 2 webservice techniques.

Xiao Vu

Joined: Jan 22, 2006
Posts: 5
WS-I is an open industry organization chartered to promote Web services interoperability across platforms, operating systems and programming languages. The organization´┐Żs diverse community of Web services leaders helps customers to develop interoperable Web services by providing guidance, recommended practices and supporting resources. To date, WS-I has finalized the Basic Profile, Attachments Profile and Simple SOAP Binding Profile. Work on a Basic Security Profile is currently underway.

These Profiles provide a set of recommendations on how to use web services specifications to maximize interoperability.

SOAP is a simple XML-based protocol to let applications exchange information over HTTP when you develope web service.

SOAP is a simple XML-based protocol for exchanging information between web serices and WS-I is a guideline on how to use SOAP and others to get the best interoperability.

The following example shows what developers should know when you implement SOAP Fault in your web service in WS-I Basic Profile:
SOAP 1.1 allows custom fault codes to appear inside the faultcode element, through the use of the "dot" notation. Use of this mechanism to extend the meaning of the SOAP 1.1-defined fault codes can lead to namespace collision. Therefore, its use should be avoided, as doing so may cause interoperability issues when the same names are used in the right-hand side of the "." (dot) to convey different meaning.

Instead, the WS-I Basic Profile 1.0 encourages the use of the fault codes defined in SOAP 1.1, along with additional information in the detail element to convey the nature of the Fault.

Alternatively, it is acceptable to define custom fault codes in a namespace controlled by the specifying authority.

A number of specifications have already defined custom fault codes using the "." (dot) notation. Despite this, their use in future specifications is discouraged.

When a MESSAGE contains a faultcode element the content of that element SHOULD be one of the fault codes defined in SOAP 1.1 or a namespace qualified fault code.

When a MESSAGE contains a faultcode element the content of that element SHOULD NOT use of the SOAP 1.1 "dot" notation to refine the meaning of the Fault.

It is recommended that applications that require custom fault codes either use the SOAP 1.1 defined fault codes and supply additional information in the detail element, or that they define these codes in a namespace that is controlled by the specifying authority.

Please read SOAP section in SCDJWS Study Resources.
I agree. Here's the link:
subject: WS-I vs. SOAP
jQuery in Action, 3rd edition