I think the #ActivityPub client-to-server API is extremely important and underrated.
Fediverso
118
Posts
12
Posters
108
Views
-
@evan @benpate @steve @mariusor @smallcircles my understanding of proxyUrl is that it's just fetching a remote object, but without forwarding authorization
For many cases you want to forward the request as the authenticated user to the remote server, not doing the request anonymously
@thisismissem it's not explicitly saying to forward authorization, but to me that's implied from "require authentication":
proxyUrl: Endpoint URI so this actor's clients may access remote ActivityStreams objects which require authentication to access
-
Rather than sharedInbox I was more thinking that by implementing the HTTP API and msg exchanges in a well-prescribed manner, these would effectively model an event bus conceptually. After which you can talk about it as a higher abstraction that exists, and not get lost in the reeds of the impl details anymore.
@smallcircles @steve sure. I am not a fan of the idea that AP is a message-passing system; it's a read-write API.
-
@smallcircles @steve sure. I am not a fan of the idea that AP is a message-passing system; it's a read-write API.
It is both, like in that diagram draft.. or at least could be considered such (the notes apply to Protosocial musings).
-
@thisismissem it's not explicitly saying to forward authorization, but to me that's implied from "require authentication":
proxyUrl: Endpoint URI so this actor's clients may access remote ActivityStreams objects which require authentication to access
@mariusor I have implemented it requiring OAuth on one side and using HTTP Signature on the other. I think you need to use the user's authorization for private content or to respect personal blocks. It sucks for caching but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
@mariusor I have implemented it requiring OAuth on one side and using HTTP Signature on the other. I think you need to use the user's authorization for private content or to respect personal blocks. It sucks for caching but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yeah, this is how I'd expect it to work (with the possible addition of *also* allowing cookie auth on the client side)
But yeah. Locally authenticated user from my client -> my server, then HTTP signature from my server -> your server
-
Yeah, this is how I'd expect it to work (with the possible addition of *also* allowing cookie auth on the client side)
But yeah. Locally authenticated user from my client -> my server, then HTTP signature from my server -> your server
-
@smallcircles @steve @mariusor
I think in particular the terms "publisher" and "consumer" from AS2 and "client" and "server" from AP don't always map cleanly, especially with HTTP POST requests.
When a client delivers an activity to the actor's outbox, the client is the publisher of that activity, and the server is the consumer.
Same when a sending server (publisher) delivers an activity to a receiving server (consumer).
-
It is both, like in that diagram draft.. or at least could be considered such (the notes apply to Protosocial musings).
Another issue: Unclear protocol layers.
> I am not a fan of the idea that #ActivityPub is a message-passing system; it's a read-write API.
I'm not sure what a "read-write API" is, really. It 's a fuzzy term, whereas message based systems have well-defined architecture patterns and a body of IT knowledge and practice to apply them in robust communication systems. A 'Message API' has a generic, consistent interface.
The overarching goal of AS/AP should be empowerment of the Solution developer so they can directly focus on building use cases for their application or business domain. They should not have to think about any of the intrinsics of the protocol, like particular GETs and POSTs used to model protocol capabilities in the HTTP transport layer.
Solution design then involves:
0. Model the domain
1. Data modeling, msg formats + validation
2. Define actor msg exchange patterns
3. Document design
--
4. Improve these steps. Add native protocol + tool support over time. -
Another issue: Unclear protocol layers.
> I am not a fan of the idea that #ActivityPub is a message-passing system; it's a read-write API.
I'm not sure what a "read-write API" is, really. It 's a fuzzy term, whereas message based systems have well-defined architecture patterns and a body of IT knowledge and practice to apply them in robust communication systems. A 'Message API' has a generic, consistent interface.
The overarching goal of AS/AP should be empowerment of the Solution developer so they can directly focus on building use cases for their application or business domain. They should not have to think about any of the intrinsics of the protocol, like particular GETs and POSTs used to model protocol capabilities in the HTTP transport layer.
Solution design then involves:
0. Model the domain
1. Data modeling, msg formats + validation
2. Define actor msg exchange patterns
3. Document design
--
4. Improve these steps. Add native protocol + tool support over time.@smallcircles @steve it's ok if you haven't heard of a REST API. It's an API that uses HTTP for reading and writing data. Wikipedia has a good
article about it: -
@smallcircles @steve it's ok if you haven't heard of a REST API. It's an API that uses HTTP for reading and writing data. Wikipedia has a good
article about it:@smallcircles @steve one anti-pattern I dislike seeing in ActivityPub discussions is that only one interaction defined in the ActivityPub spec is valid: an HTTP POST to an actor's `inbox` for server-to-server interactions.
We can use HTTP GET to fetch additional data about objects, actors and collections.
-
@smallcircles @steve one anti-pattern I dislike seeing in ActivityPub discussions is that only one interaction defined in the ActivityPub spec is valid: an HTTP POST to an actor's `inbox` for server-to-server interactions.
We can use HTTP GET to fetch additional data about objects, actors and collections.
@smallcircles @steve So, I disagree that we have to exclusively adopt a message-passing paradigm for ActivityPub.
EDIT: note that it's exclusive.
-
@smallcircles @steve So, I disagree that we have to exclusively adopt a message-passing paradigm for ActivityPub.
EDIT: note that it's exclusive.
@evan @smallcircles @steve ActivityPub already is a message passing paradigm
-
@evan @smallcircles @steve ActivityPub already is a message passing paradigm
> it's ok if you haven't heard of a REST API.
Well, you be you. I consider this a 'typical Evan remark' by now, dripping with sarcasm. It is a weird fit for someone who want to lead the #SocialCG efforts, I'd say.
Ah well. What I am talking about is architecture and design, and all the things that allow people to easily form a clear mental picture on how things fit together, wrap their head around the fediverse.
A HTTP interface is a very low-level thing, and clearly but one of the many moving parts that play a role in #ActivityPub based solution development.
Never defining this well, and having the documentation be scattered all across the fediverse in 1,001 random locations doesn't help. Meanwhile the dev talk that is going on for years remains very inefficient due to endless Babylonian speech confusion.
-
> it's ok if you haven't heard of a REST API.
Well, you be you. I consider this a 'typical Evan remark' by now, dripping with sarcasm. It is a weird fit for someone who want to lead the #SocialCG efforts, I'd say.
Ah well. What I am talking about is architecture and design, and all the things that allow people to easily form a clear mental picture on how things fit together, wrap their head around the fediverse.
A HTTP interface is a very low-level thing, and clearly but one of the many moving parts that play a role in #ActivityPub based solution development.
Never defining this well, and having the documentation be scattered all across the fediverse in 1,001 random locations doesn't help. Meanwhile the dev talk that is going on for years remains very inefficient due to endless Babylonian speech confusion.
@smallcircles @cwebber @steve hey, Arnold.
I don't think argument from ignorance is a good way to have a discussion.
I chose to take you at your word that you didn't know what a "read-write API" is, and that you couldn't figure it out from context clues, so I dropped a link to Wikipedia.
What would you have done, if you were me?
-
@evan @smallcircles @steve ActivityPub already is a message passing paradigm
@cwebber @smallcircles @steve thanks for that important clarification.
It does use message-passing, but not exclusively. I'll update my reply.
-
@cwebber @smallcircles @steve thanks for that important clarification.
It does use message-passing, but not exclusively. I'll update my reply.
Which was exactly what I also indicated above, and which aligns to that diagram as well.
-
@smallcircles @cwebber @steve hey, Arnold.
I don't think argument from ignorance is a good way to have a discussion.
I chose to take you at your word that you didn't know what a "read-write API" is, and that you couldn't figure it out from context clues, so I dropped a link to Wikipedia.
What would you have done, if you were me?
So why don't you use the word REST? I never encountered "read-write API". It is an informal term.
But that is not the point. You can have a REST API, fine. But that says nothing in itself. What does it expose? You might say "Duh.. ActivityPub!" but that is not very informative either. There is the notion of message exchange, and of an addressing mechanism, indicating higher level abstractions that conform to well-known architecture patterns, and would allow us to have more productive communication, delve less in implementation details and confusions of protocol behavior with solution design functionality, for starters.
-
@smallcircles @cwebber @steve awesome.
So, would you like me to review your diagram and give comments? I don't know what you're looking for from me in this conversation.
-
@smallcircles @cwebber @steve awesome.
So, would you like me to review your diagram and give comments? I don't know what you're looking for from me in this conversation.
-
@smallcircles @cwebber @steve I would personally really appreciate that. I also think it'd be helpful for the ecosystem. I like that you combine a high-level social and technical approach to discussions of ActivityPub and the Social Web with an almost encyclopedic knowledge of the details. It's a rare combination and extremely valuable.
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
Some implementations skip some of these steps, because they are focused only on processing messages as they arrive. So, I am reluctant to overemphasize the message processing at the expense of the personal datastore functionality.
-
@smallcircles @cwebber @steve I'm fine with that.
However, I think ActivityPub builds up persistent state on the server side which can be read and used by other processors.
For example, when I `Like` something, it goes into my `liked` collection, and the activity goes into the `likes` for that object. The `Like` activity goes into my `outbox` and others' `inbox`. People can review that information and use it.
-
@smallcircles what do you have in mind, and how is the Fediverse trending in the wrong direction for it?
-
Thank you, that is nice to hear. I am however not an expert, am but a humble generalist and a person who'd love to be in that Solution developer stakeholder role. Who however does not see the fediverse trend in a direction where I'd adopt the technology for what I have in mind. Drifting away from "the promise" that I read in the #ActivityPub specs in 2017, and which at the time made me decide to lend a helping hand here and there as #SocialHub facilitator and tech advocate.
-
@smallcircles @cwebber @steve I would personally really appreciate that. I also think it'd be helpful for the ecosystem. I like that you combine a high-level social and technical approach to discussions of ActivityPub and the Social Web with an almost encyclopedic knowledge of the details. It's a rare combination and extremely valuable.
-
-
@smallcircles @cwebber @steve awesome.
So, would you like me to review your diagram and give comments? I don't know what you're looking for from me in this conversation.
-
So why don't you use the word REST? I never encountered "read-write API". It is an informal term.
But that is not the point. You can have a REST API, fine. But that says nothing in itself. What does it expose? You might say "Duh.. ActivityPub!" but that is not very informative either. There is the notion of message exchange, and of an addressing mechanism, indicating higher level abstractions that conform to well-known architecture patterns, and would allow us to have more productive communication, delve less in implementation details and confusions of protocol behavior with solution design functionality, for starters.
