最好在REST和JSON-RPC之间选择JSON-RPC，为web应用程序开发一个更容易理解的API。JSON-RPC是首选，因为它对方法调用和通信的映射很容易理解。

选择最合适的方法取决于约束条件或主要目标。例如，只要性能是一个主要特征，就建议使用JSON-RPC(例如，高性能计算)。但是，如果主要目标是不可知，以便提供一个通用的接口供其他人推断，则建议使用REST。如果两个目标都需要实现，建议同时包含两个协议。

The fact which actually splits REST from JSON-RPC is that it trails a series of carefully thought out constraints- confirming architectural flexibility. The constraints take in ensuring that the client as well as server are able to grow independently of each other (changes can be made without messing up with the application of client), the calls are stateless (the state is regarded as hypermedia), a uniform interface is offered for interactions, the API is advanced on a layered system (Hall, 2010). JSON-RPC is rapid and easy to consume, however as mentioned resources as well as parameters are tightly coupled and it is likely to depend on verbs (api/addUser, api/deleteUser) using GET/ POST whereas REST delivers loosely coupled resources (api/users) in a HTTP. REST API depends up on several HTTP methods such as GET, PUT, POST, DELETE, PATCH. REST is slightly tougher for inexperienced developers to implement.

JSON (denoted as JavaScript Object Notation) being a lightweight data-interchange format, is easy for humans to read as well as write. It is hassle free for machines to parse and generate. JSON is a text format which is entirely language independent but practices conventions that are acquainted to programmers of the family of languages, consisting of C#, C, C++, Java, Perl, JavaScript, Python, and numerous others. Such properties make JSON a perfect data-interchange language and a better choice to opt for.

我使用vdata为RPC协议: http://vdata.dekuan.org/

1、PHP和JavaScript都没问题。 2、跨源资源共享(CORS)呼叫仍然正常。

错误的问题:强加一个根本不存在的摩尼教!

您可以使用带有“较少动词”(没有方法)的JSON-RPC，并保留sendo id、参数、错误代码和警告消息所需的最小标准化。JSON-RPC标准没有说“你不能是REST”，只是说如何打包基本信息。

“REST JSON-RPC”存在!是REST与“最佳实践”，最小化信息包装，简单可靠的合同。

例子

(从这个答案和教学上下文)

在处理REST时，从资源的角度考虑通常会有所帮助。在这种情况下，资源不仅仅是“银行账户”，而是该银行账户的交易……但是JSON-RPC没有指定“方法”参数，所有都是由端点的“路径”编码的。

REST Deposit with POST /Bank/Account/John/Transaction with JSON request {"jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": 12, "params": {"currency":"USD","amount":10}}. The JSON response can be something as {"jsonrpc": "2.0", "result": "sucess", "id": 12} REST Withdraw with POST /Bank/Account/John/Transaction ... similar. ... GET /Bank/Account/John/Transaction/12345@13 ... This could return a JSON record of that exact transaction (e.g. your users generally want a record of debits and credits on their account). Something as {"jsonrpc": "2.0", "result": {"debits":[...],"credits":[...]}, "id": 13}. The convention about (REST) GET request can include encode of id by "@id", so not need to send any JSON, but still using JSON-RPC in the response pack.

最好在REST和JSON-RPC之间选择JSON-RPC，为web应用程序开发一个更容易理解的API。JSON-RPC是首选，因为它对方法调用和通信的映射很容易理解。

选择最合适的方法取决于约束条件或主要目标。例如，只要性能是一个主要特征，就建议使用JSON-RPC(例如，高性能计算)。但是，如果主要目标是不可知，以便提供一个通用的接口供其他人推断，则建议使用REST。如果两个目标都需要实现，建议同时包含两个协议。

The fact which actually splits REST from JSON-RPC is that it trails a series of carefully thought out constraints- confirming architectural flexibility. The constraints take in ensuring that the client as well as server are able to grow independently of each other (changes can be made without messing up with the application of client), the calls are stateless (the state is regarded as hypermedia), a uniform interface is offered for interactions, the API is advanced on a layered system (Hall, 2010). JSON-RPC is rapid and easy to consume, however as mentioned resources as well as parameters are tightly coupled and it is likely to depend on verbs (api/addUser, api/deleteUser) using GET/ POST whereas REST delivers loosely coupled resources (api/users) in a HTTP. REST API depends up on several HTTP methods such as GET, PUT, POST, DELETE, PATCH. REST is slightly tougher for inexperienced developers to implement.

JSON (denoted as JavaScript Object Notation) being a lightweight data-interchange format, is easy for humans to read as well as write. It is hassle free for machines to parse and generate. JSON is a text format which is entirely language independent but practices conventions that are acquainted to programmers of the family of languages, consisting of C#, C, C++, Java, Perl, JavaScript, Python, and numerous others. Such properties make JSON a perfect data-interchange language and a better choice to opt for.

根据Richardson成熟度模型，问题不是REST vs. RPC，而是多少REST?

从这个角度来看，REST标准的遵从性可以分为4个级别。

0级:从动作和参数的角度考虑。正如本文所解释的，这在本质上等同于JSON-RPC(本文对XML-RPC进行了解释，但两者的参数相同)。 第一级:从资源的角度考虑。与资源相关的所有内容都属于同一个URL 第2级:使用HTTP动词 第三级:HATEOAS

According to the creator of REST standard, only level 3 services can be called RESTful. However, this is a metric of compliance, not quality. If you just want to call a remote function that does a calculation, it probably makes no sense to have relevant hypermedia links in the response, neither differentiation of behavior based on the HTTP verb used. So, a such call inherently tends to be more RPC-like. However, lower compliance level does not necessarily mean statefulness, or higher coupling. Probably, instead of thinking REST vs. RPC, you should use as much REST as possible, but no more. Do not twist your application just to fit with the RESTful compliance standards.

为什么JSON RPC:

对于REST api，我们必须为可能需要的每个功能/方法定义一个控制器。因此，如果我们想让客户端访问10个方法，我们就必须编写10个控制器来将客户端请求连接到特定的方法。

另一个因素是，即使我们为每个方法/功能使用不同的控制器，客户端也必须记住是使用POST还是GET。这使事情更加复杂。为了发送数据，如果使用POST，则必须设置请求的内容类型。

对于JSONRPC，事情大大简化了，因为大多数JSONRPC服务器操作POST HTTP方法，内容类型始终是application/ JSON。这减轻了在客户端使用正确的HTTP方法和内容设置的负担。

不必为服务器想要向客户端公开的不同方法/功能创建单独的控制器。

为什么休息:

对于服务器希望向客户端公开的不同功能，有不同的url。因此，您可以嵌入这些url。

这些观点大多是有争议的，完全取决于一个人的需要。