Drafting a [proposal][1] to add API support in #Fedify for the [ActivityPub Media Upload extension][2], the SocialCG-incubated #C2S companion that lets clients upload media via a dedicated `endpoints
-
@hongminhee I haven't reached that point in GoActivityPub development to really think about it.
Currently for binary uploads I use world's hackiest hack
️, where I encode the media as a base64 media URI and set it as the Content of a Image/Audio/Video object that I send through client to server. 
So far this has worked well enough between the clients and servers *I* developed, but I can't really ask anyone else to support that.
I’m not developing against ap specifically but do keep tabs
I think the two part process makes sense and that’s how I’m approaching my ap adjacent media explorations
The core is the idea of an array of posts, where each post could be a different media type, and so I upload media first and once I have what we can call a permalink, I put that in the actual post to create the reference from the top level post to embed the media
My biggest annoyance as someone that really enjoys media production, is how bad media is across the fediverse.
I’m a firm believer that how bad these tools are for people like me is why this place doesn’t grow beyond people that can stomach primarily text based relationships.
-
I’m not developing against ap specifically but do keep tabs
I think the two part process makes sense and that’s how I’m approaching my ap adjacent media explorations
The core is the idea of an array of posts, where each post could be a different media type, and so I upload media first and once I have what we can call a permalink, I put that in the actual post to create the reference from the top level post to embed the media
My biggest annoyance as someone that really enjoys media production, is how bad media is across the fediverse.
I’m a firm believer that how bad these tools are for people like me is why this place doesn’t grow beyond people that can stomach primarily text based relationships.
@mariusor @hongminhee fwiw my entire architecture is a c2s so I’m very excited to be compatible with a flourishing c2s ap future
A single central personal server makes so much sense to me and I’ve really enjoyed what I’m doing even if I’m only a personal computer and a party of 1
-
I’m not developing against ap specifically but do keep tabs
I think the two part process makes sense and that’s how I’m approaching my ap adjacent media explorations
The core is the idea of an array of posts, where each post could be a different media type, and so I upload media first and once I have what we can call a permalink, I put that in the actual post to create the reference from the top level post to embed the media
My biggest annoyance as someone that really enjoys media production, is how bad media is across the fediverse.
I’m a firm believer that how bad these tools are for people like me is why this place doesn’t grow beyond people that can stomach primarily text based relationships.
@tychi that sounds a lot a like of what I'm doing with my BOX client to server client and ONI ActivityPub server.
https://git.sr.ht/~mariusor/box
https://git.sr.ht/~mariusor/oni -
R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
-
I’m not developing against ap specifically but do keep tabs
I think the two part process makes sense and that’s how I’m approaching my ap adjacent media explorations
The core is the idea of an array of posts, where each post could be a different media type, and so I upload media first and once I have what we can call a permalink, I put that in the actual post to create the reference from the top level post to embed the media
My biggest annoyance as someone that really enjoys media production, is how bad media is across the fediverse.
I’m a firm believer that how bad these tools are for people like me is why this place doesn’t grow beyond people that can stomach primarily text based relationships.
@tychi also I submitted my proposal alongside Reiver's submission: https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/578#issuecomment-4366469692
-
@tychi that sounds a lot a like of what I'm doing with my BOX client to server client and ONI ActivityPub server.
https://git.sr.ht/~mariusor/box
https://git.sr.ht/~mariusor/oni@mariusor @hongminhee super cool, yeah we’re definitely tracking in similar veins in adjacent spaces
The core of my c2s philosophy is a small js lib I use for custom elements because I do think react, vue, svelte, angular, htmx, lit are all too complicated for 90% of things.
It’d be actually pretty easy for me to embed my whole os just as oni client assets, just some js.
AFK for a couple weeks but I’m sure I’ll clone and poke sometime this summer. I’ll share back when I do
-
@hongminhee 대박!
-
@hongminhee like I mentioned in a thread where Evan and Reiver were talking about this, I think having a mediaUpload that has a very similar behaviour to an inbox/outbox, but with one **small** changed detail is a bad API.
I would prefer there's either a two step process: upload media first, use resulting token in an object create, or use the outbox with for the binary data upload directly... The first one seems saner to me.
I hope you write that out! But people should implement the API we have now.
-
I hope you write that out! But people should implement the API we have now.
@evan I did on reiver's comment on github: https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/578#issuecomment-4366469692
It's a compromise between the current SocialCG proposal, and what I said above.
Do you think it warrants it's own ticket?
-
@evan I did on reiver's comment on github: https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/578#issuecomment-4366469692
It's a compromise between the current SocialCG proposal, and what I said above.
Do you think it warrants it's own ticket?
@mariusor @hongminhee yes, it should be a separate ticket.
I don't like your proposal for multiple reasons:
1) It doesn't include addressing, so the upload server doesn't know how to enforce authorization requests. Is the file for followers? Only addressed accounts? The public?
2) What happens if the client doesn't post the `Create` activity?
I think it's better to keep it all in one transaction together.
-
@mariusor @hongminhee yes, it should be a separate ticket.
I don't like your proposal for multiple reasons:
1) It doesn't include addressing, so the upload server doesn't know how to enforce authorization requests. Is the file for followers? Only addressed accounts? The public?
2) What happens if the client doesn't post the `Create` activity?
I think it's better to keep it all in one transaction together.
> 1) It doesn't include addressing,
As always it's the Clients that are responsible for addressing, therefore the second step should cover it, if the user/client chooses to perform it.
2) What happens if the client doesn't post the `Create` activity?
Whatever the server desires: cleanup after a while, keeping the media, etc.
Why do you think it's relevant for the specification itself?ActivityPub, to my reading, is not about how to *store* content, but about how to *distribute* content.
So after it was uploaded, it's no longer the concern of the spec, unless operated further through other ActivityPub requests.
