Skip to content

NodeBB v4.0.0 — Federate good times, come on!

Uncategorized
116 66 1.3k

Diese Artikel könnten Dich auch interessieren.

  • 0 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    abraham@indieweb.social and they say ActivityPub is too technical ...
  • From: blenderdumbass .

    Uncategorized activitypub fediverse mastodon bdserver python
    2
    0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    blenderdumbass@mastodon.online why does this article keep showing up with a newer timestamp?
  • Final thoughts re: FediCon 2025

    ActivityPub fedicon fedicon2025 activitypub
    17
    0 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    26 Aufrufe
    jdp23@neuromatch.socialJ
    @julian Also, speaking of fixable deficiencies, my edits here don't seem to propagate to SocialHub . Without knowing the code I'm confident it's fixable because my edits did propagate to the NodeBB thread at https://community.nodebb.org/topic/18932/final-thoughts-re-fedicon-2025/14 , great to see!
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • hi folks

    Uncategorized activitypub golang
    5
    0 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    33 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    No better place to talk ActivityPub than the fediverse! evan@cosocial.ca radhitya@pl.100indie.org reiver@mastodon.social
  • What drew you to ActivityPub?

    ActivityPub activitypub dotsocial blogs
    5
    0 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    30 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    > Getting a critical mass of people to create yet another account was always a major obstacle. I see and have experienced this effect time and time again, and we're getting closer and closer to the point where the protocol implementations can abstract away the messy bits. Gaining critical mass among devs is the first step!
  • 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
  • ActivityPub for forums looks neat!

    Uncategorized activitypub federation discourse fediverse
    2
    0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    90 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