Federated private groups (Announce vs Add)
-
@sk@utsukta.org mentioned in another thread that the way Hubzilla and threadiverse software handle group discussions is incompatible.
It got me thinking about whether that is true. At its core both FEPs (171b and 1b12, respectively) rely on a central "distributor" node to send activities to recipients.
@silverpill@mitra.social did further comparisons in thr text of 171b itself:
>
Announceactivity is used instead ofAdd. Conversation and related activities are synchronized between participants, but conversation backfilling mechanism is not specified.The questions here are:
- If threadiverse software federated out an
Addin addition toAnnounce, would that satisfy basic synchronization (not backfill) requirements laid out by 171b? - Is there any reason why
Announcecould not be used to facilitate private federated group discussions as well? Assuming visibility maintains scoped to addresses, I don't see any immediate reason why not...
I wouldn't want to send two activities because that doubles the number of delivery requests. But I think implementations can easily accept both types of activities (mitra already does that).
Also, I don't mind replacing
AddwithAnnouncein FEP-171b. It is nice thatAddhas aRemovecounterpart, butRemoveis not used in practice. Of course, this can only happen if Hubzilla and Forte devs agree, since these are reference implementations - If threadiverse software federated out an
-
I wouldn't want to send two activities because that doubles the number of delivery requests. But I think implementations can easily accept both types of activities (mitra already does that).
Also, I don't mind replacing
AddwithAnnouncein FEP-171b. It is nice thatAddhas aRemovecounterpart, butRemoveis not used in practice. Of course, this can only happen if Hubzilla and Forte devs agree, since these are reference implementations@silverpill imo usingAnnounceinstead ofAdddoes not make any sense for conversation containers. You add/remove items to a collection right?
@julian @z6MkhPXNfiHDh2qSNjFzZ9yY27C1iHnHVbb1eaxuoiEe4tjk/actor" rel="nofollow noopener">Mike Macgirvin -
@silverpill imo using
Announceinstead ofAdddoes not make any sense for conversation containers. You add/remove items to a collection right?
@julian @z6MkhPXNfiHDh2qSNjFzZ9yY27C1iHnHVbb1eaxuoiEe4tjk/actor" rel="nofollow noopener">Mike Macgirvin@mario Yes, activities are supposed to be added to
Add.target.Announcewithtargetis kind of weird, but will be compatible with other federated forums.Alternatively, they can start using
Addinstead ofAnnounce, like we do. @julian Does that sound feasible? Your personal inbox still 404s but maybe the group inbox will work. -
@mario Yes, activities are supposed to be added to
Add.target.Announcewithtargetis kind of weird, but will be compatible with other federated forums.Alternatively, they can start using
Addinstead ofAnnounce, like we do. @julian Does that sound feasible? Your personal inbox still 404s but maybe the group inbox will work.> @silverpill@mitra.social said:
>
> Your personal inbox still 404s but maybe the group inbox will work.Unrelated to the topic at hand there was a regression in the codebase for the past month that caused the inbox to return a 404 even with a valid content type header.
I think that was the cause of the inbox 404
-
@mario Yes, activities are supposed to be added to
Add.target.Announcewithtargetis kind of weird, but will be compatible with other federated forums.Alternatively, they can start using
Addinstead ofAnnounce, like we do. @julian Does that sound feasible? Your personal inbox still 404s but maybe the group inbox will work.> @silverpill@mitra.social said:
>
> Alternatively, they can start usingAddinstead ofAnnounce, like we do. @julian Does that sound feasible?I personally have no problem with it (after all, I advocated in OP to just send both activities)
But I know @nutomic@lemmy.ml will absolutely veto the discussion because it is a breaking change for the entire threadiverse, and he is not wrong.
There is a third option... and that is to send a single multi-typed activity
maybe this is the turning point for adoption of multi type activities! (Of course I'm only half joking because I'm sure that'll be ruled breaking and unfeasible too.) -
R AodeRelay shared this topic
-
R ActivityRelay shared this topic
-
Is this what Mitra does now for 171b/1b12 cross-compatibility?
-
-
Is there any reason why Announce could not be used to facilitate private federated group discussions as well? Assuming visibility maintains scoped to addresses, I don’t see any immediate reason why not…
Private communities are already implemented in Lemmy 1.0 using
Announce. Here is the RFC with details, and you can test it on voyager.lemmy.ml. -
Yes that would be doable, feel free to open an issue.
-
Is there any reason why Announce could not be used to facilitate private federated group discussions as well? Assuming visibility maintains scoped to addresses, I don’t see any immediate reason why not…
Private communities are already implemented in Lemmy 1.0 using
Announce. Here is the RFC with details, and you can test it on voyager.lemmy.ml.Thanks @nutomic@lemmy.ml! I was wondering about that, so good to know it's possible.
