Skip to content
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

Proposal: Drop "Actor" Type #277

Closed
jasnell opened this issue Dec 14, 2015 · 3 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@jasnell
Copy link
Collaborator

commented Dec 14, 2015

The Actor type currently serves as a base class for the five primary Actor types. It does not, however, define any actor specific properties and it would be highly unlikely for an implementation to use the Actor type directly. We can flatten the model a bit more by simply removing the Actor type and having Person, Group, Organization, Service, and Application extend directly from Object

@jasnell jasnell added the proposal label Dec 14, 2015

@cwebber

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Dec 14, 2015

Hm... I kind of find Actor to be useful as a conceptual model of what's going on, and to understand what activitystreams terms most frequently fill in the "actor" slot. I'm -0 on this... I think it would be a minor loss to lose that information, but I'm not strongly against it.

@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Dec 15, 2015

WG decided to accept this change.

@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Dec 15, 2015

Done

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.