Skip to content

A question for #Fediverse devs: I'm thinking about better ways to document development of the #ActivityPub stack.

Uncategorized
5 3 0

Diese Artikel könnten Dich auch interessieren.

  • Idle thought re: account delegation

    ActivityPub activitypub c2s
    6
    0 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    evan@cosocial.ca that's cool, so hopefully I'll have something to test against besides another NodeBB server
  • 0 Stimmen
    18 Beiträge
    4 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
    1 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Voting in the threadiverse

    Uncategorized fediverse
    18
    1
    0 Stimmen
    18 Beiträge
    36 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    snoopy@jlai.lu personally, since I create AP enabled software I am on the side of votes being public data. We already have enough issues with votes being out of sync with each other. Mixing in private voting is just asking for trouble. Emoji reactions are neat, although niche to those softwares that utilise it. They allow for greater expression which is nice. They're useless for deriving value (for ranking purposes) unless you assign value to them.
  • Why is data congregation so hard on Mastodon?

    Fediverse fediverse
    9
    0 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    25 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    Thanks! It's something that I personally feel is more performant and future proof for other important things like private discussions (which Mastodon also doesn't support natively yet — mention spamming doesn't count.)
  • Backfilling Conversations: Two Major Approaches

    ActivityPub activitypub fep 7888 f228 171b
    26
    0 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    106 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
    17 Beiträge
    158 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
  • Test Post for @julian

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