Skip to content

ForumWG cancelled this month (July)

Forums and Threaded Discussions Task Force
1 1 12

Diese Artikel könnten Dich auch interessieren.

  • Bridge as a service...

    Uncategorized bridgyfed fediverse activitypub
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 7.2.0 – Follow ups

    Uncategorized activitypub blocks fediverse followers following
    2
    2
    0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    pfefferle@mastodon.social oh interesting! > We’ve also made it easier to follow people from other sites. When you click “Follow” on someone else’s blog, you’ll now be taken to your own site to complete it. It keeps things simple and familiar, even when you start following someone from another site. How do you know the user pressing the button has a WordPress site?
  • hi folks

    Uncategorized activitypub golang
    5
    0 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    34 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    No better place to talk ActivityPub than the fediverse! evan@cosocial.ca radhitya@pl.100indie.org reiver@mastodon.social
  • Backfilling Conversations: Two Major Approaches

    ActivityPub activitypub fep 7888 f228 171b
    26
    0 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    163 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    > One weakness I have noticed in NodeBB's current federation is that posts which are in reply to a topic (e.g. a Lemmy comment) show up as individual threads until (or if) the root post of that topic shows up in the local NodeBB. No, Lemmy does not implement either strategy, they rely on 1b12 only. If NodeBB is receiving parts of a topic that don't resolve up to the root-level post that might be something we can fix. I'll try to take a look at it.
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    18 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 0 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    193 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    Hey rimu@piefed.social thanks for responding (and sorry for the late reply!) I am not married to the Announce([Article|Note|Page]) approach, so I am definitely open to Create([Article|Note|Page]) with a back-reference. I think I went the former direction because there is a known fallback mechanism — the Announce is treated as a share/boost/repost as normal. However, sending the Create also is fine I think. However, do we need a backreference? In my limited research, it seems that Piefed, et al. picks the first Group actor and associates the post with that community. If I sent over a Create(Article) with two Group actors addressed, could Piefed associate the post with the first, and initiate a cross-post with the remaining Group actors? Secondly, is how to handle sync. 1b12 relies on communities having reciprocal followers in order for two-way synchronization to be established. On my end since I know it is cross-posted I will now send 1b12 activities to cross-posted communities, but can Piefed, et al. send 1b12 activities back as well, in the absence of followers? cc andrew_s@piefed.social nutomic@lemmy.ml melroy@kbin.melroy.org bentigorlich@gehirneimer.de
  • 0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    100 Aufrufe
    FrankMF
    Kommt echt an Ich bin verblüfft LOL