I think the #ActivityPub client-to-server API is extremely important and underrated.

@evan @mariusor @benpate @steve @smallcircles yeah, it's the only way to do it.

But this infrastructure actually is what enables things like the AT Protocol "proxy through my PDS to the bluesky app view" or "proxy through my PDS to a custom feed generator" functionality.

That's how that all works.

@evan @steve

Another issue: Unclear protocol layers.

> I am not a fan of the idea that #ActivityPub is a message-passing system; it's a read-write API.

I'm not sure what a "read-write API" is, really. It 's a fuzzy term, whereas message based systems have well-defined architecture patterns and a body of IT knowledge and practice to apply them in robust communication systems. A 'Message API' has a generic, consistent interface.

The overarching goal of AS/AP should be empowerment of the Solution developer so they can directly focus on building use cases for their application or business domain. They should not have to think about any of the intrinsics of the protocol, like particular GETs and POSTs used to model protocol capabilities in the HTTP transport layer.

Solution design then involves:

0. Model the domain
1. Data modeling, msg formats + validation
2. Define actor msg exchange patterns
3. Document design
--
4. Improve these steps. Add native protocol + tool support over time.

@smallcircles @steve it's ok if you haven't heard of a REST API. It's an API that uses HTTP for reading and writing data. Wikipedia has a good
article about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REST

@smallcircles @steve one anti-pattern I dislike seeing in ActivityPub discussions is that only one interaction defined in the ActivityPub spec is valid: an HTTP POST to an actor's `inbox` for server-to-server interactions.

We can use HTTP GET to fetch additional data about objects, actors and collections.

@smallcircles @steve So, I disagree that we have to exclusively adopt a message-passing paradigm for ActivityPub.

EDIT: note that it's exclusive.

@evan @smallcircles @steve ActivityPub already is a message passing paradigm

@evan

> it's ok if you haven't heard of a REST API.

Well, you be you. I consider this a 'typical Evan remark' by now, dripping with sarcasm. It is a weird fit for someone who want to lead the #SocialCG efforts, I'd say.

Ah well. What I am talking about is architecture and design, and all the things that allow people to easily form a clear mental picture on how things fit together, wrap their head around the fediverse.

A HTTP interface is a very low-level thing, and clearly but one of the many moving parts that play a role in #ActivityPub based solution development.

Never defining this well, and having the documentation be scattered all across the fediverse in 1,001 random locations doesn't help. Meanwhile the dev talk that is going on for years remains very inefficient due to endless Babylonian speech confusion.

https://social.coop/@smallcircles/116109447243110037

@cwebber @steve

@smallcircles @cwebber @steve hey, Arnold.

I don't think argument from ignorance is a good way to have a discussion.

I chose to take you at your word that you didn't know what a "read-write API" is, and that you couldn't figure it out from context clues, so I dropped a link to Wikipedia.

What would you have done, if you were me?

@cwebber @smallcircles @steve thanks for that important clarification.

It does use message-passing, but not exclusively. I'll update my reply.

@evan @cwebber @steve

Which was exactly what I also indicated above, and which aligns to that diagram as well.

@evan @cwebber @steve

So why don't you use the word REST? I never encountered "read-write API". It is an informal term.

But that is not the point. You can have a REST API, fine. But that says nothing in itself. What does it expose? You might say "Duh.. ActivityPub!" but that is not very informative either. There is the notion of message exchange, and of an addressing mechanism, indicating higher level abstractions that conform to well-known architecture patterns, and would allow us to have more productive communication, delve less in implementation details and confusions of protocol behavior with solution design functionality, for starters.

@smallcircles @cwebber @steve awesome.

So, would you like me to review your diagram and give comments? I don't know what you're looking for from me in this conversation.

@evan @cwebber @steve

Not needed. I hope to be able to add some feedback to the AP API repo.

@smallcircles @cwebber @steve I would personally really appreciate that. I also think it'd be helpful for the ecosystem. I like that you combine a high-level social and technical approach to discussions of ActivityPub and the Social Web with an almost encyclopedic knowledge of the details. It's a rare combination and extremely valuable.

@evan @cwebber @steve

Thank you, that is nice to hear. I am however not an expert, am but a humble generalist and a person who'd love to be in that Solution developer stakeholder role. Who however does not see the fediverse trend in a direction where I'd adopt the technology for what I have in mind. Drifting away from "the promise" that I read in the #ActivityPub specs in 2017, and which at the time made me decide to lend a helping hand here and there as #SocialHub facilitator and tech advocate.

@smallcircles what do you have in mind, and how is the Fediverse trending in the wrong direction for it?

@smallcircles @cwebber @steve I'm fine with that.

However, I think ActivityPub builds up persistent state on the server side which can be read and used by other processors.

For example, when I `Like` something, it goes into my `liked` collection, and the activity goes into the `likes` for that object. The `Like` activity goes into my `outbox` and others' `inbox`. People can review that information and use it.

@smallcircles @cwebber @steve

Some implementations skip some of these steps, because they are focused only on processing messages as they arrive. So, I am reluctant to overemphasize the message processing at the expense of the personal datastore functionality.

@evan

So the area where my plans go I call "Residential social networking", geo-fenced but inter-connected social networking circles that cover a city, town, or rural area, and which enable their residents to not only create content on the network, but the dynamic apps and services based on local needs that exist in the area. The intent of a residential social network is to engage people *offline* and in activities that support the local economy. Or rather strengthens the Circles of Sustainability in SX terminology:

https://coding.social/blog/reimagine-social/#circles-of-sustainability

And all this should be a relatively low-code affair, directly accessible already for a first-time dev. This requires having a mature open standards based healthy technology foundation and thriving ecosystem.

I am a developer, though with rusty coding skills these days, and I might have started a fedi app design in 2018 or so. But this would not have led to the desired outcome, just throw one more app-centric software in the mix.

@smallcircles that sounds cool!