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.

如果您的服务只使用模型和GET/POST/PUT/DELETE模式就能正常工作，那么请使用纯REST。

我同意HTTP最初是为无状态应用程序设计的。

但是对于现代的、更复杂的(!)实时(web)应用程序，你想要使用Websockets(这通常意味着有状态性)，为什么不同时使用呢?基于Websockets的JSON-RPC非常简单，所以你有以下好处:

在每个客户机上进行即时更新(为更新模型定义您自己的服务器到客户机RPC调用) 容易增加复杂性(尝试只使用REST制作Etherpad克隆) 如果你做得对(只添加RPC作为实时的额外功能)，大多数仍然可以使用REST(除非主要功能是聊天或其他)

由于您只是在设计服务器端API，所以从定义REST模型开始，然后根据需要添加JSON-RPC支持，将RPC调用的数量保持在最低限度。

(很抱歉括号用多了)

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.

我过去一直是REST的忠实粉丝，它在纸上比RPC有很多优势。你可以给客户端提供不同的内容类型、缓存、HTTP状态代码的重用，你可以通过API引导客户端，如果API不是大部分都是自解释的，你可以在API中嵌入文档。

But my experience has been that in practice this doesn't hold up and instead you do a lot of unnecessary work to get everything right. Also the HTTP status codes often don't map to your domain logic exactly and using them in your context often feels a bit forced. But the worst thing about REST in my opinion is that you spend a lot of time to design your resources and the interactions they allow. And whenever you do some major additions to your API you hope you find a good solution to add the new functionality and you didn't design yourself into a corner already.

This often feels like a waste of time to me because most of the time I already have a perfectly fine and obvious idea about how to model an API as a set of remote procedure calls. And if I have gone through all this effort to model my problem inside the constraints of REST the next problem is how to call it from the client? Our programs are based on calling procedures so building a good RPC client library is easy, building a good REST client library not so much and in most cases you will just map back from your REST API on the server to a set of procedures in your client library.

正因为如此，今天对我来说，RPC感觉更简单、更自然。不过，我真正怀念的是一个一致的框架，它可以很容易地编写自描述和可互操作的RPC服务。因此，我创建了自己的项目，尝试新的方法使RPC对我自己更容易，也许其他人也会发现它有用:https://github.com/aheck/reflectrpc

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.