回答2012年刷新的问题(通过第二个赏金)，并回顾今天的结果(其他答案)。

---

SOAP的利弊

关于SOAP 1.2，与“REST”相比的优点和缺点…从2007年开始 你可以用WSDL描述REST Web服务， 并使用SOAP协议…也就是说，如果您再努力一点，web服务协议栈的所有W3C标准都可以是REST!

这是一个很好的起点，因为我们可以想象一个场景，在这个场景中，所有的哲学和方法论讨论都暂时被避免了。我们可以在技术上比较类似服务中的“SOAP-REST”和“非SOAP-REST”，

SOAP-REST (="REST-SOAP"): as showed by L.Mandel, WSDL2 can describe a REST webservice, and, if we suppose that exemplified XML can be enveloped in SOAP, all the implementation will be "SOAP-REST". NON-SOAP-REST: any REST web service that can not be SOAP... That is, "90%" of the well-knowed REST examples. Some not use XML (ex. typical AJAX RESTs use JSON instead), some use another XML strucutures, without the SOAP headers or rules. PS: to avoid informality, we can suppose REST level 2 in the comparisons.

当然，为了从概念上进行比较，可以将“NON-REST-SOAP”与“NON-SOAP-REST”作为不同的建模方法进行比较。那么，完成这个web服务分类:

NON-REST-SOAP:任何不能是REST的SOAP web服务…也就是说，“90%”的广为人知的SOAP示例。 NON-REST-NEITHER-SOAP:是的，“web服务建模”的世界包括其他东西(例如XML-RPC)。

REST条件下的SOAP

比较可比较的事物:皂歇和非皂歇。

PROS

解释一些术语，

Contractual stability: for all kinds of contracts (as "written agreements"), By the use of standars: all levels of the W3C stack are mutually compliant. REST, by other hand, is not a W3C or ISO standard, and have no normatized details about service's peripherals. So, as I, @DaveWoldrich(20 votes), @cynicalman(5), @Exitos(0) said before, in a context where are NEED FOR STANDARDS, you need SOAP. By the use of best practices: the "verbose aspect" of the W3C stack implementations, translates relevant human/legal/juridic agreements. Robustness: the safety of SOAP structure and headers. With metada communication (with the full expressiveness of XML) and verification you have an "insurance policy" against any changes or noise. SOAP have "transactional reliability (...) deal with communication failures. SOAP has more controls around retry logic and thus can provide more end-to-end reliability and service guarantees", E. Terman.

按受欢迎程度排序，

更好的工具(~70票):从2007年到2012年，SOAP目前拥有更好的工具的优势，因为它是一个定义良好且被广泛接受的标准。参见@MarkCidade(27票)，@DaveWoldrich(20票)，@JoshM(13票)，@TravisHeseman(9票)。 标准遵从性(25票):正如我，@DaveWoldrich(20票)，@愤世嫉俗的人(5票)，@Exitos(0票)之前所说，在需要标准的上下文中，您需要SOAP。 健壮性:SOAP头的保险，@JohnSaunders(8票)。

CONS

SOAP strucuture is more complex (more than 300 votes): all answers here, and sources about "SOAP vs REST", manifest some degree of dislike with SOAP's redundancy and complexity. This is a natural consequence of the requirements for formal verification (see below), and for robustness (see above). "REST NON-SOAP" (and XML-RPC, the SOAP originator) can be more simple and informal. The "only XML" restriction is a performance obstacle when using tiny services (~50 votes): see json.org/xml and this question, or this other one. This point is showed by @toluju(41), and others. PS: as JSON is not a IETF standard, but we can consider a de facto standard for web software community.

---

使用SOAP对服务建模

现在，我们可以添加SOAP- non - rest与非SOAP- rest比较，并解释什么时候使用SOAP更好:

Need for standards and stable contracts (see "PROS" section). PS: see a typical "B2B need for standards" described by @saille. Need for tools (see "PROS" section). PS: standards, and the existence of formal verifications (see bellow), are important issues for the tools automation. Parallel heavy processing (see "Context/Foundations" section below): with bigger and/or slower processes, no matter with a bit more complexity of SOAP, reliability and stability are the best investments. Need more security: when more than HTTPS is required, and you really need additional features for protection, SOAP is a better choice (see @Bell, 32 votes). "Sending the message along a path more complicated than request/response or over a transport that does not involve HTTP", S. Seely. XML is a core issue, offering standards for XML Encryption, XML Signature, and XML Canonicalization, and, only with SOAP you can to embed these mechanisms into a message by a well-accepted standard as WS-Security. Need more flexibility (less restrictions): SOAP not need exact correspondence with an URI; not nedd restrict to HTTP; not need to restrict to 4 verbs. As @TravisHeseman (9 votes) says, if you wanted something "flexible for an arbitrary number of client technologies and uses", use SOAP.PS: remember that XML is more universal/expressive than JSON (et al). Need for formal verifications: important to understand that W3C stack uses formal methods, and REST is more informal. Your WSDL (a formal language) service description is a formal specification of your web services interfaces, and SOAP is a robust protocol that accept all possible WSDL prescriptions.

上下文

历史

要判断趋势，必须有历史的眼光。对于这个问题，10年或15年的展望……

在W3C标准化之前，有一些混乱。很难用不同的框架实现可互操作的服务，而在公司之间实现一些可互操作的东西则更加困难、昂贵和耗时。 W3C堆栈标准一直是复杂web服务集互操作的明灯。

对于日常的任务，比如实现AJAX, SOAP很繁重……因此，需要简单的方法，需要选择一个新的理论框架…而大的“网络软件玩家”，如谷歌、亚马逊、雅虎等，选出了最佳的替代方案，那就是REST方法。在这种情况下，REST概念作为一个“竞争性框架”出现了，并且，今天(2012年)，这个替代方案已经成为程序员的事实上的标准。

基金会

在并行计算环境下，web服务提供并行子任务;和协议，如SOAP，确保良好的同步和通信。不是“任何任务”:web服务可以被分类为 粗粒度和令人尴尬的并行。

随着任务变得越来越大，“复杂性争论”变得不那么重要，而与通信的稳健性和合同的稳固性更加相关。

我写的大多数应用程序都是服务器端c#或Java，或者WinForms或WPF中的桌面应用程序。这些应用程序往往需要比REST所能提供的更丰富的服务API。另外，我不想在创建web服务客户机上花费超过几分钟的时间。WSDL处理客户端生成工具允许我实现我的客户端并继续添加业务价值。

现在，如果我为一些javascript ajax调用显式地编写web服务，它可能是在REST中;只是为了了解客户端技术和利用JSON。在我看来，从javascript中使用的web服务api可能不应该非常复杂，因为这种类型的复杂性似乎可以更好地处理服务器端。

也就是说，javascript有一些SOAP客户端;我知道jQuery有一个。因此，SOAP可以从javascript中利用;只是不像REST服务返回JSON字符串那样好。因此，如果我有一个web服务，我希望它足够复杂，能够灵活地适应任意数量的客户端技术和用途，那么我会选择SOAP。

这是微妙的。

如果您需要让其他系统与您的服务进行接口，那么由于您使用契约、WSDL和SOAP标准所拥有的“验证”层，许多客户端将更乐于使用SOAP。

对于日常系统对系统的调用，我认为SOAP是很多不必要的开销，而简单的HTML调用就可以了。

当我在惠普工作时，我根据开发中的原始规范构建了第一批SOAP服务器之一，包括代码生成和WSDL生成。我不建议在任何事情上使用SOAP。

首字母缩写“SOAP”是一个谎言。它不是简单的，它不是面向对象的，它没有定义访问规则。可以说，它是一项议定书。这是Don Box有史以来最糟糕的规格，这是一个相当了不起的壮举，因为他是“COM”的创造者。

SOAP中没有什么有用的东西是REST不能用于传输的，JSON、XML甚至纯文本不能用于数据表示的。为了传输安全，可以使用https协议。对于认证，使用基本认证。对于会话，有cookie。REST版本将更简单、更清晰、运行更快、使用更少的带宽。

XML-RPC清楚地定义了请求、响应和错误协议，并且对于大多数语言都有很好的库。但是，对于许多任务来说，XML比您所需要的要重。

快速了解一下2012年的问题:

REST在以下方面发挥了很好的作用:

Limited bandwidth and resources. Remember the return structure is really in any format (developer defined). Plus, any browser can be used because the REST approach uses the standard GET, PUT, POST, and DELETE verbs. Again, remember that REST can also use the XMLHttpRequest object that most modern browsers support today, which adds an extra bonus of AJAX. Totally stateless operations. If an operation needs to be continued, then REST is not the best approach and SOAP may fit it better. However, if you need stateless CRUD (Create, Read, Update, and Delete) operations, then REST is it. Caching situations. If the information can be cached because of the totally stateless operation of the REST approach, this is perfect.That covers a lot of solutions in the above three.

那么我为什么要考虑SOAP呢?同样，SOAP是相当成熟和定义良好的，并且带有完整的规范。REST方法就是这样一种方法，它对开发非常开放，所以如果你具备以下条件，那么SOAP就是一个很好的解决方案:

Asynchronous processing and invocation. If your application needs a guaranteed level of reliability and security then SOAP 1.2 offers additional standards to ensure this type of operation. Things like WSRM – WS-Reliable Messaging. Formal contracts. If both sides (provider and consumer) have to agree on the exchange format then SOAP 1.2 gives the rigid specifications for this type of interaction. Stateful operations. If the application needs contextual information and conversational state management then SOAP 1.2 has the additional specification in the WS* structure to support those things (Security, Transactions, Coordination, etc). Comparatively, the REST approach would make the developers build this custom plumbing.

http://www.infoq.com/articles/rest-soap-when-to-use-each

这是个好问题……我不想让你误入歧途，所以我和你一样愿意接受别人的答案。对我来说，这实际上归结于开销成本和API的使用。在创建客户端软件时，我更喜欢使用web服务，但是我不喜欢SOAP的重量。我相信REST的重量更轻，但我不太喜欢从客户的角度使用它。

我很好奇别人是怎么想的。