Skip to content

As someone who has developed several #ActivityPub software implementations ([Fedify], [Hollo], [BotKit], and [Hackers' Pub]), I believe one of the most frustrating features to implement in the #fediverse is #custom_emoji.

Uncategorized
43 9 69

Diese Artikel könnten Dich auch interessieren.

  • hi folks

    Uncategorized activitypub golang
    5
    0 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    16 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    No better place to talk ActivityPub than the fediverse! evan@cosocial.ca radhitya@pl.100indie.org reiver@mastodon.social
  • 0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    15 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    lucas3d@mastodon.social that looks fun! Was it just a social event?
  • Federated Social Media with Topic-Based Following and Blocking?

    Uncategorized fediverse
    3
    0 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    14 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    pumpkindrama@reddthat.com NodeBB supports topic based following, because it's a forum and that's literally how it was done way back then. You can follow tags as well.
  • 0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    benpate@mastodon.social honestly whatever you ramble on about is always a good show. Stoked you're presenting!
  • 0 Stimmen
    18 Beiträge
    33 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    smallcircles@social.coop if you're not able to consume dev discussions on the fediverse and have to continually rely on people creating content on your platform then you need to raise that as an issue on your platform software.
  • 0 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    82 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    I suppose you're right in a way. The context owner is not supposed to be set by someone other than the context owner. It's a fallback mechanism intended for better compatibility with Mastodon. When a group is addressed and it is one of the local NodeBB categories, it will assume control If it is another group that it knows about but isn't same origin to the author, then no category is assumed.
  • 0 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    174 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
  • 1 Stimmen
    116 Beiträge
    1k Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    @willi@social.tchncs.de a VPS can be had from DigitalOcean or Vultr quite economically (although I know that isn't always the case in some countries) You can also use our referral link for an account credit too!