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

首先，HTTP-REST是一种“具象状态传输”体系结构。这意味着很多有趣的事情:

您的API将是无状态的，因此更容易设计(在复杂的自动机中很容易忘记转换)，并与独立的软件部件集成。 你将被引导设计安全的读取方法，这将是容易缓存和集成。 你会被引导把写方法设计成幂等的方法，这样可以更好地处理超时。

其次，HTTP- rest完全兼容HTTP(请参阅前一部分中的“安全”和“幂等”)，因此您将能够重用HTTP库(适用于所有现有语言)和HTTP反向代理，这将使您能够实现高级功能(缓存、身份验证、压缩、重定向、重写、日志记录等)，而无需代码行。

最后但并非最不重要的是，根据HTTP 1.1的设计者(以及REST的发明者)的说法，使用HTTP作为RPC协议是一个巨大的错误:http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/evaluation.htm#sec_6_5_2

如果您请求资源，那么RESTful API在设计上更好。如果您请求一些具有大量参数和复杂方法的复杂数据，而不是简单的CRUD，那么RPC是正确的方法。

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

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。

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.