Repository navigation
ActivityPub implementation #3186
Description
Activity
I cannot speak to the specific steps, though I am pleased to see this making progress. The one feature I very much hope to see is a check-box so that one can decide on a per-post basis whether to federate a post.
Reacted by Django@jeremycherfas I've created a new issue based on your comment, I hope you don't mind I tried to broaden the scope a bit.
Were you considering a public post that DOES NOT federate? (Please follow up here #3187 )
Considering landrok/activitypub library relies on an http-fondation Request to work with incoming activities, I'm currently evaluating Streamlined Request/Response Interface .
Reacted by Julien Desrosiers@benwerd In light of #2461, I propose Sprint 2 should bring annotations into a separate table.
My other concern is regarding the adoption of standard messaging interface re: #3029.
Doing this seems worthwhile as it allows us to use some of the main features of landrok/activitypub:
- an interface for receiving and verifying activities
- some convenient methods for retrieving remote objects and traversing collections
Keeping an eye on HTTP Signature Verification issue in
landrok/activitypubfor Sprint 3.Reacted by Julien Desrosiers
Plan
Tentative plan for activitypub implementation and feature development
Overview
Sprint 1
Sprint 2
http-foundation Requestmethods for use withlandrok/activitypubSprint 3
inboxandsharedInboxendpoints and controller to receive remote Post requestsSprint 4
Sprint 5
Additional context
Following up from #2615
This issue will be used to discuss some implementation approaches