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。

Great answers - just wanted to clarify on a some of the comments. JSON-RPC is quick and easy to consume, but as mentioned resources and parameters are tightly coupled and it tends to rely on verbs (api/deleteUser, api/addUser) using GET/ POST where-as REST provides loosely coupled resources (api/users) that in a HTTP REST API relies on several HTTP methods (GET, POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE). REST is slightly harder for inexperienced developers to implement, but the style has become fairly common place now and it provides much more flexibility in the long-run (giving your API a longer life).

除了没有紧密耦合的资源外，REST还允许您避免提交到单一的内容类型中——这意味着如果您的客户端需要接收XML、JSON甚至YAML格式的数据——如果在您的系统中，您可以使用内容类型/接受标头返回其中任何一种。

这让你的API足够灵活，以支持新的内容类型或客户端需求。

But what truly separates REST from JSON-RPC is that it follows a series of carefully thought out constraints- ensuring architectural flexibility. These constraints include ensuring that the client and server are able to evolve independently of each other (you can make changes without messing up your client's application), the calls are stateless (state is represented through hypermedia), a uniform interface is provided for interactions, the API is developed on a layered system, and the response is cacheable by the client. There's also an optional constraint for providing code on demand.

然而，尽管如此，大多数API都不是RESTful的(根据Fielding的说法)，因为它们不包含超媒体(在响应中嵌入超文本链接，帮助导航API)。大多数api都是类似REST的，因为它们遵循大多数REST的概念，但忽略了这个约束。然而，越来越多的api正在实现这一点，它正在成为一种主流实践。

这也为您提供了一些灵活性，因为超媒体驱动的api(如Stormpath)将客户端引导到URI(这意味着如果某些情况发生了变化，在某些情况下您可以修改URI而不会产生负面影响)，而与RPC一样，URI需要是静态的。使用RPC，您还需要广泛地记录这些不同的uri，并解释它们如何相互关联地工作。

一般来说，如果您想要构建一个可扩展的、灵活的、长期存在的API，我认为REST是最佳选择。基于这个原因，我认为这是99%的情况下应该走的路线。

祝你好运, 迈克

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

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。

REST与HTTP紧密耦合，因此如果您只通过HTTP公开API，那么REST更适合于大多数(但不是所有)情况。然而，如果你需要通过其他传输方式(如消息传递或web套接字)公开你的API，那么REST就不适用了。

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)