Skip to content

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

Uncategorized
116 66 1.4k

Diese Artikel könnten Dich auch interessieren.

  • 0 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    abraham@indieweb.social and they say ActivityPub is too technical ...
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Long-form articles

    Uncategorized activitypub
    21
    0 Stimmen
    21 Beiträge
    39 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    feb@loma.ml well the great thing is the FEP is still a draft and your opinions are welcome cc jupiter_rowland@hub.netzgemeinde.eu silverpill@mitra.social
  • 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
    27 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
    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
    194 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
  • 0 Stimmen
    50 Beiträge
    135 Aufrufe
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    D1re_W0lf does it work if you add the app to the home screen?