Skip to content

Ich muss hier mal wieder spammen für einen Test mit #ActivityPub und #NodeBB

Uncategorized
2 2 97

Diese Artikel könnten Dich auch interessieren.

  • hi folks

    Uncategorized activitypub golang
    5
    0 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    21 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
    5 Beiträge
    28 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    deadsuperhero@social.wedistribute.org I'm of the opinion that a solid collection of links is the easiest way to get there. FediDevs set out to do that but I think the best approach would be to update ActivityPub.rocks with the links and docs instead. Join the WG for it!! Led by evan@cosocial.ca and j12t@j12t.social
  • Backfilling Conversations: Two Major Approaches

    ActivityPub activitypub fep 7888 f228 171b
    26
    0 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    140 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.
  • Pleroma Webfinger compatibility

    ActivityPub activitypub pleroma webfinger
    10
    0 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    112 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    trwnh@mastodon.social before, I was not sending Accept at all, now I am sending application/jrd+json.
  • 0 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    184 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
  • Blogtastisch: 2. Blogs und das Fediverse

    notizBlog activitypub blogs fediblog fediverse weblogs
    17
    1
    0 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    210 Aufrufe
    caromite@troet.cafeC
    @pfefferle Wow, danke für das super Video! Für mich ist das Fediverse noch ganz neu, hab jetzt mein Blog föderiert und mir einen Account bei Mastodon erstellt. Fühle mich noch etwas verloren, aber bin überzeugt auf dem richtigen Weg zu sein
  • ActivityPub for forums looks neat!

    Uncategorized activitypub federation discourse fediverse
    2
    0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    82 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    NodeBB is gearing up for a major release this month that brings full two way federation and content discoverability to forums as well! We've been working on it all last year! @activitypub
  • Test Post for @julian

    Uncategorized activitypub
    3
    0 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    107 Aufrufe
    FrankMF
    Uups, next try https://nrw.social/deck/@FrankM/113606591981853331