Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@julian@fietkau.social in a parallel conversation not about interaction controls, @rimu@piefed.social made the case for batching events, which I'm going to repurpose as an argument against sending additional activities for backward compatibility (unless absolutely necessary.)
> As a user can do a great number of notable things (posting content, liking content, following others) each minute and there can be thousands of instances to send to, a great many POST requests can be sent in a short amount of time.
>
> For example if 5 people cast 20 votes and there are 500 instances, the instance hosting the community containing the posts being voted on must send 5 * 20 * 500 = 50,000 HTTP POSTs.
-
@julian@fietkau.social @evan @julian@activitypub.space @smallcircles this makes me really wish people didn't overload the AS2 vocab so much, and were less afraid of defining their own extensions. you could swing it so that the same activity is an Add, Accept, and ReplyAck. it sucks that we have to pick one instead of using whatever makes sense. (developers: please support multityping and/or duck typing! composability is the only true path to extensibility, and one size never fits all...)
-
@trwnh There's also this, yeah. GTS interaction controls have already gone through one breaking schema revision from version 0.19 to 0.21 (with 0.20 trying to manage both), and a core goal of the FEP I'm working on is to not break compatibility again.
Sending out an Add in addition to the Accept(Note) that's already happening should be non-breaking for existing implementations, I'm pretty sure. What's left to decide is whether it's a good idea.
-
@trwnh This is in the context of a FEP draft which prescribes a meaning (including desired side effects) for compliant implementations.
Hence my fidgeting with the vocabulary. The effects are the goal, the question is how they should be expressed and broadcasted. (Principle of least surprise, potential compatibility with existing implementations that look at the replies collection, concerns around server traffic...)
-
@julian@fietkau.social @evan @julian@activitypub.space @smallcircles i think the issue here is that projects are doing things that may or may not get widely adopted, then if the proposals ever change, they have to deal with older software only understanding the old thing they tried. (this is where i would say something about protocol capability negotiation)
-
@julian@fietkau.social @evan @julian@activitypub.space @smallcircles alternatively add the Reply itself, parallel to likes/shares collections. it depends on whether you think the replies collection should always contain a specific type of object, which i don't think is something you can guarantee because publishers can do anything with it. similar to how some publishers include activities in threads and some include notes.
-
@julian@fietkau.social @evan @julian@activitypub.space @smallcircles
> replies collection is the source of truth for replies curated by the object owner.
this is fine i think, but the way to do this usually is HTTP GET. you could notify of changes to the replies collection, or you could reify the Reply and then Accept that?
the Reply has an instrument which is the Note. it has clear side effects to Add the instrument to the object.replies. the side effects can be gated behind Accept/Reject like following currently works.
-
@julian@fietkau.social @evan @julian@activitypub.space @smallcircles
> express that the owner of the replied-to object has accepted a reply, i.e. that the reply is added to the post's replies collection and shown under it in the web view
i get that, but the question is whether you can claim this understanding universally for all peers. as it stands, Accept is very vague wrt this. Accept(Note) meaning "Add to replies collection" might be a thing gts does, but that's their interpretation of Accept, not the definition.
