I'm curious what other devs think about this.

@smallcircles @jerger I feel like using C2S client and S2S server is a bit more precise than "app" for this thread. At this point, I haven't been able to determine how you define "app".

@steve @jerger

Yes, I would highly discourage the use of "app". It is why I scare quoted it, but "app" is common language when people talk about the fediverse. "App" is a neat container concept that fits the full scope of ones own FOSS project, but on the fediverse - a growing heterogeneous and interoperable social network - one becomes highly dependent on the foundational network communication layer based on #ActivityPub, and any fedi FOSS developer should be concerned beyond direct project scope, and pay attention that this foundation evolves healthily. This unfortunately happens unsufficiently, and only a very small number of people try to get the ecosystem as a whole to higher levels, volunteering time where it does not directly benefit their own projects. Think @silverpill for the #FEP and @evan for #SocialCG.

Cool find yesterday was that @HolosSocial rather than C2S has a "full AP server" client-side, that communicates with a Websockets tunnel to a dedicated relay server.

@smallcircles @silverpill
@HolosSocial Holos Social is interesting, but to avoid confusion, the phone app is not a "full AP server". It can't federate without an external relay server, for example. Although it combines both client-like and server-like functionality, I don't see it as an alternative to C2S. With C2S I'd be able to access my account/actor from a phone, a tablet, and desktop and laptop computers with different clients. Holos Social binds the actor to a single phone IIUC.

@steve @silverpill

Yes good to mention, I was out of chars. It becomes I guess like a local-first S2S on the client-side, tied to compliant Relay servers that facilitate the tunnel.

Perhaps @HolosSocial can enlighten us for their project, but such a set up should not necessarily bind to a single client.

I'm curious what other devs think about this. If an actor posts an C2S #ActivityPub Create/Note to the outbox, what would you think if the object created by the server was a different type (e.g., Article)?

@steve This is really interesting.

I see a few cases. One is an ActivityPub API façade for an existing CMS, like Drupal or WordPress. The underlying system only stores Articles, so it tries to fit any input into that format. It might also take a Create/Image and return an Article with an embedded image, say.

@steve I could also see if the server is checking the content type of the payload, and changing it on the fly. For example, a Create/Image with an MP4 movie as the payload, and it changes it to a Video. In the case you're explaining, maybe the Note has many paragraphs, and the server changes it to an Article to match the expectations for that type.

@steve Finally, just an opinionated server developer -- "there's no difference, everything should be an Article."

@steve In a way, the server is the most responsible for the object long-term -- it stores and serves the data, assigns it an id, provides security, and so on. It also maintains a long-term relationship with the user, including the user's preferences.

But the client is closer to the user, in the moment, and may more accurately represent the user's immediate needs and wants.

I'm curious what other devs think about this. If an actor posts an C2S #ActivityPub Create/Note to the outbox, what would you think if the object created by the server was a different type (e.g., Article)?