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?
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    12 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 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
    9 Beiträge
    116 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
    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
  • Blogtastisch: 2. Blogs und das Fediverse

    notizBlog activitypub blogs fediblog fediverse weblogs
    17
    1
    0 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    231 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