Federated private groups (Announce vs Add)
Technical Discussion
1
Posts
1
Posters
0
Views
-
@sk@utsukta.org mentioned in another thread that the way Hubzilla and threadiverse software handle group discussions is incompatible.
It got me thinking about whether that is true. At its core both FEPs (171b and 1b12, respectively) rely on a central "distributor" node to send activities to recipients.
@silverpill@mitra.social did further comparisons in thr text of 171b itself:
>
Announceactivity is used instead ofAdd. Conversation and related activities are synchronized between participants, but conversation backfilling mechanism is not specified.The questions here are:
- If threadiverse software federated out an
Addin addition toAnnounce, would that satisfy basic synchronization (not backfill) requirements laid out by 171b? - Is there any reason why
Announcecould not be used to facilitate private federated group discussions as well? Assuming visibility maintains scoped to addresses, I don't see any immediate reason why not...
- If threadiverse software federated out an
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@sk@utsukta.org mentioned in another thread that the way Hubzilla and threadiverse software handle group discussions is incompatible.
It got me thinking about whether that is true. At its core both FEPs (171b and 1b12, respectively) rely on a central "distributor" node to send activities to recipients.
@silverpill@mitra.social did further comparisons in thr text of 171b itself:
> Announce activity is used instead of Add. Conversation and related activities are synchronized between participants, but conversation backfilling mechanism is not specified.
The questions here are:
If threadiverse software federated out an Add in addition to Announce, would that satisfy basic synchronization (not backfill) requirements laid out by 171b? Is there any reason why Announce could not be used to facilitate private federated group discussions as well? Assuming visibility maintains scoped to addresses, I don't see any immediate reason why not...
-
I'm playing around with Offer activities in Fedify. The AP Vocab provides this, easy peasy.
✅ Alice OFFERS Book to Bob
✅ Bob ACCEPTS Alice's OFFEROr:
✅ Bob OFFERS Rotten Tomato to Alice
❌ Alice REJECTS Bob's OFFER----------------
But I'm not clear if this is right:
❓Alice ANNOUNCES OFFER of Labubu to Followers?
❓Bob OFFERS $10 for Labubu to Alice?
❓ Alice ACCEPTS Bob's OFFER of $10 for Labubu?
✅ Alice OFFERS Labubu to Bob
✅ Bob ACCEPTS Labubu
-
Your Home Feed is the inbox of an ActivityPub actor — in particular YOUR ActivityPub actor.
There could be an actor for each hash-tag, too.
You could even do Del.icio.us like things — and have actors for intersections of hash-tags, too.
These hash-tag actors' inboxes would need to be readable by anyone.
...
This could be a more ActivityPub like API alternative to Mastodon's "GET /API/v1/tags/{name}" API.
#ActivityPub #FediDev #FediDevs #Fediverse #HashTag #HashTags
-
@hongminhee How hard would it be for a future version of ActivityPub to simply back out JSON-LD support? Would there be a downside to this?
-
@julian Yes, POST to personal inbox sends a 404, POST to group inbox sends a 202 (I guess group inbox is how we communicate now).
-
@silverpill@mitra.social POSTing that inbox sends a 404?
-
@julian @liaizon https://activitypub.space/uid/1/inbox still returns 404. Perhaps group's inbox is working?
UPD: yes https://activitypub.space/category/5/inbox returns 202
