Federated private groups (Announce vs Add)
Technical Discussion
12
Posts
4
Posters
8
Views
-
I wouldn't want to send two activities because that doubles the number of delivery requests. But I think implementations can easily accept both types of activities (mitra already does that).
Also, I don't mind replacing
AddwithAnnouncein FEP-171b. It is nice thatAddhas aRemovecounterpart, butRemoveis not used in practice. Of course, this can only happen if Hubzilla and Forte devs agree, since these are reference implementations -
I wouldn't want to send two activities because that doubles the number of delivery requests. But I think implementations can easily accept both types of activities (mitra already does that).
Also, I don't mind replacing
AddwithAnnouncein FEP-171b. It is nice thatAddhas aRemovecounterpart, butRemoveis not used in practice. Of course, this can only happen if Hubzilla and Forte devs agree, since these are reference implementations@silverpill imo usingAnnounceinstead ofAdddoes not make any sense for conversation containers. You add/remove items to a collection right?
@julian @z6MkhPXNfiHDh2qSNjFzZ9yY27C1iHnHVbb1eaxuoiEe4tjk/actor" rel="nofollow noopener">Mike Macgirvin -
@silverpill imo using
Announceinstead ofAdddoes not make any sense for conversation containers. You add/remove items to a collection right?
@julian @z6MkhPXNfiHDh2qSNjFzZ9yY27C1iHnHVbb1eaxuoiEe4tjk/actor" rel="nofollow noopener">Mike Macgirvin@mario Yes, activities are supposed to be added to
Add.target.Announcewithtargetis kind of weird, but will be compatible with other federated forums.Alternatively, they can start using
Addinstead ofAnnounce, like we do. @julian Does that sound feasible? Your personal inbox still 404s but maybe the group inbox will work. -
@mario Yes, activities are supposed to be added to
Add.target.Announcewithtargetis kind of weird, but will be compatible with other federated forums.Alternatively, they can start using
Addinstead ofAnnounce, like we do. @julian Does that sound feasible? Your personal inbox still 404s but maybe the group inbox will work.> @silverpill@mitra.social said:
>
> Your personal inbox still 404s but maybe the group inbox will work.Unrelated to the topic at hand there was a regression in the codebase for the past month that caused the inbox to return a 404 even with a valid content type header.
I think that was the cause of the inbox 404
-
@mario Yes, activities are supposed to be added to
Add.target.Announcewithtargetis kind of weird, but will be compatible with other federated forums.Alternatively, they can start using
Addinstead ofAnnounce, like we do. @julian Does that sound feasible? Your personal inbox still 404s but maybe the group inbox will work.> @silverpill@mitra.social said:
>
> Alternatively, they can start usingAddinstead ofAnnounce, like we do. @julian Does that sound feasible?I personally have no problem with it (after all, I advocated in OP to just send both activities)
But I know @nutomic@lemmy.ml will absolutely veto the discussion because it is a breaking change for the entire threadiverse, and he is not wrong.
There is a third option... and that is to send a single multi-typed activity 🤣 maybe this is the turning point for adoption of multi type activities! (Of course I'm only half joking because I'm sure that'll be ruled breaking and unfeasible too.)
-
Is this what Mitra does now for 171b/1b12 cross-compatibility?
-
-
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…
Private communities are already implemented in Lemmy 1.0 using
Announce. Here is the RFC with details, and you can test it on voyager.lemmy.ml. -
Yes that would be doable, feel free to open an issue.
-
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…
Private communities are already implemented in Lemmy 1.0 using
Announce. Here is the RFC with details, and you can test it on voyager.lemmy.ml.Thanks @nutomic@lemmy.ml! I was wondering about that, so good to know it's possible.
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
Thanks @nutomic@lemmy.ml! I was wondering about that, so good to know it's possible.
-
> There are paths out of the situation, but I'm not confident in the discourse around them right now, and hesitant about how much I want to engage with it.
Yes. I posted something on the same subject today.
-
@eyeinthesky The reason we can't have nice things is because the Fedi Devs don't want to deal with the basics of the protocol. Or: Because no one has yet provided C2S for Fedi Devs who don't want to deal with the basics.
-
@cwebber @eyeinthesky @smallcircles @evan Apart from the fact that I would prefer turtle, I am very happy that AP ‘prescribes’ json-ld. This opens the door to many of my ideas. It makes possible what would be very complicated without #RDF. It's about time that the AP developers got to grips with it! https://rdf-pub.org/#rdf
-
@eyeinthesky @smallcircles @evan To be clear, I think json-ld has a lot of great ideas in it, and it's the extensibility and linked data compatibility (which was a strong group requirement) story we had at the time.
"JSON-LD is bad" doesn't really capture my views. "JSON-LD turned out to be too complicated for the majority of the ecosystem to work with, particularly when we gave the view that you could ignore it, except it creates a rift of interoperability between those who ignore it and those who don't and puts a burden on the latter who are doing their best to behave well" does match my views.
There are paths out of the situation, but I'm not confident in the discourse around them right now, and hesitant about how much I want to engage with it.
-
Yes that would be doable, feel free to open an issue.
-
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…
Private communities are already implemented in Lemmy 1.0 using Announce. Here is the RFC with details, and you can test it on voyager.lemmy.ml.
-
Here we come to my new interest area.. I spent a metric ton of time advocating for #fediverse and #ActivityPub and that was initially all on a very optimistic note on how our ecosystem would mature and grow over time, fostering a healthy future for itself.
That however didn't go as planned. You might say that the entirety of the fediverse is still primarily tech-driven. Tech-first approaches that do not differ too much of the much reviled and rejected 'techbro approach'.
Sure, there are plenty discussions on whether an app feature is 'ethical' or not, with discussions on e.g. opt-in vs. opt-out. But that is again purely app-centric.
Where is the dev ecosystem headed, where should they focus, what externalities exist? Where do we want future #fediverse as a whole to be? What's the vision?
And then we come to the social side of things, both in the small, but also in-the-large. Technosphere aligned and subservient to Sociosphere. That is focus of https://coding.social
