-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 194
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
ActivityPub implementation #3186
Comments
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. |
@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 . |
@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:
|
Keeping an eye on HTTP Signature Verification issue in |
Plan
Tentative plan for activitypub implementation and feature development
Overview
Sprint 1
Sprint 2
http-foundation Request
methods for use withlandrok/activitypub
Sprint 3
inbox
andsharedInbox
endpoints 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
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: