I have seen the abbreviation WS-*, but I have not been able to figure out what this means, and why is it important?
A:
That's the name of a set of standards related to web services by the W3C.
They're important because web services, by their very nature, need standards to interoperate between platforms.
Vinko Vrsalovic
2009-05-12 22:59:12
Actually it's not just the W3c at all, there's also OASIS who look after most of the WS* standards; http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=wss
blowdart
2009-05-13 10:46:42
+1
A:
The Web Service stack. There are a bunch of specifications for Web Services, and there names are written WS-whatever, for example: WS-SecurityPolicy. The * is used as a wildcard to indicate that you are referring to the Web Services stack.
Richard
2009-05-12 22:59:59
A:
WS-* refers to all the web service standards, eg WS-Security, WS-Addressing etc.
Wikipedia has a list.
gbjbaanb
2009-05-12 23:01:15
+7
A:
WS-* is shorthand for the the myriad of specifications that are used for web service messaging.
Some of the services are:
- WS-Security
- WS-SecureConversation
- WS-Federation
- WS-Authorization
- WS-Policy
- WS-Trust
- WS-Privacy
- WS-Test
There is a lot of information to digest, depending on what you need. Here's a list of the specifications on Wikipedia.
Steven Lyons
2009-05-12 23:02:55
While WS-* cover a lot of "enterprise" tick boxes they are rather complex, even with a software stack to help you interoperability is not easy in practice. Frequently known as "WS-Deathstar" for this reason. And because, for many purposes, the very simple REST route is enough (but doesn't tick those management boxes).
Richard
2009-05-12 23:10:47
I'm afraid I don't understand Richard's comment. Can someone bring that down a couple levels?
MedicineMan
2009-05-13 08:55:57
It's a snarky comment. WS* standards can be quite complicated to use for people that don't know them. The suggestion to use REST may work depending on your requirements - if you don't need security, strong typing, build in validation, sessions and so on. If you do, or you have a heavy investment in SOAP web services already then using these optional standards is the way to go
blowdart
2009-05-13 10:45:21
Its certainly the "way to go" if you're in some kind of "consultancy" - your project will magically take 9000 times longer, for fun and $$
time4tea
2009-05-13 12:01:22
MedicineMan, the WS-* stack has a reputation for being over-engineered and REST is a different web services option that works without the WS-* overhead. SOAP/WS-* and REST have different sweet spots and good reasons to use either, depending on context. As a gross over-generalization, REST is a great option for create, read, update, delete operations and WS-* is better for method-oriented services that need message security. Richard's complaint is that enterprises sometimes choose WS-* over REST because the stack offers complicated security features even though they won't need them.
Steven Lyons
2009-05-13 12:20:18
