ActivityPub

julian@community.nodebb.org Yeah, being able to treat Mastodon and Lemmy/mbin/piefed like a bulletin board continues to feel like magic.

goten@piefed.social hi, from NodeBB !

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

לאצי the usernames work fine locally (that is, on the site itself). It’s when interoperating with other sites not running NodeBB where there are issues, it seems

silverpill@mitra.social I thought about checking against the outbox, but there’s a potential race condition that could occur if I receive the Create(Note) at roughly the same time as the community, but the community hasn’t processed the activity yet. In that scenario, the activity would not be in the outbox for checking. The same thing would happen if there was some out-of-band check for object membership in a collection (not that there is one right now).

projectmoon@forum.agnos.is I will 100% be working on addressing all three of those use cases. I’ll rework it into my cross-posting functionality Relay support is on the list (awaiting NLNet funding) Auto cross-posting perhaps? (If uncategorized, it would just categorize it)

trwnh@mastodon.social before, I was not sending Accept at all, now I am sending application/jrd+json.

@julian@community.nodebb.org It would be good for outgoing posts if cross posting is used for synced categories. But it doesn’t solve the problem of incoming posts. For that, it would make sense to still slot incoming posts based on the sync setup. But there is still the problem of Lemmy not accepting follows from category actors.

A little semantics thing: I'd argue that HTTP 410 and as:Tombstone are semantically equivalent, i.e.an as:Tombstone should always be served with the HTTP 410 status, andA HTTP 410 status should be treated as a tombstoneSoftware unaware of tombstones will then treat it as a hard delete. "Fully" tombstone aware software can then use logic likeif (status == 200 && contentType is as2) { // treat as normal} else if (status == 410 && contentType is as2 && in body.type) { // also treat as normal} else if (status == 410) { // synthesize a tombstone} else if (status == 404) { // hard delete?} else // existing error handling logic

I think you’re right

@Kichae said in Organizing the many worlds you’re part of through NodeBB: > But man, do I ever desperately want the bulletin board experience in /world. It really feels like what the fediverse was always meant to be, to me. I’ve been inspired by some teaser images from @johnonolan@mastodon.xyz’s Ghost blog, which physically segregates microblogging content apart from long-form content (e.g. blogs). Forum topics fit somewhere in the middle, although since title and body are present we tend to align more with long-form content. It’s a really neat idea I’d like to play around with more.