@mariusor @smallcircles @evan I’m not sure I completely follow.
-
@steve yes, that's how I meant it. A client fetches as much of the collection as it can, then applies whatever rules it wants to transform the result into a "timeline" when the user asks for it.
This however most likely requires local caching of the collection to have decent latency.
@mariusor @smallcircles @evan Yes, it can be done in the client or the server, or both. I’d like to see an interoperable way to define custom timelines (a kind of user-defined timeline algo) that the server maintains. A Mastodon account list timeline is a super simple version of it, but AP could provide something much more powerful (advanced filtering, merging, ranking, …). Ideally, these could be shared and customized further on the client side.
-
@mariusor @smallcircles @evan Yes, it can be done in the client or the server, or both. I’d like to see an interoperable way to define custom timelines (a kind of user-defined timeline algo) that the server maintains. A Mastodon account list timeline is a super simple version of it, but AP could provide something much more powerful (advanced filtering, merging, ranking, …). Ideally, these could be shared and customized further on the client side.
@steve frankly I disagree with this point. Servers should be simple. We need to move away from the paradigm of custom purpose ActivityPub servers that Mastodon pushed where the client and server are the same service.
Timelines should be orthogonal to the ActivityPub specification and, in my opinion, kept well away from it.
What's the benefit for my client application to know what your server's preferred timeline representation is?
Let's not go down the path where everything looks like a nail because we really like hammers.
-
@steve frankly I disagree with this point. Servers should be simple. We need to move away from the paradigm of custom purpose ActivityPub servers that Mastodon pushed where the client and server are the same service.
Timelines should be orthogonal to the ActivityPub specification and, in my opinion, kept well away from it.
What's the benefit for my client application to know what your server's preferred timeline representation is?
Let's not go down the path where everything looks like a nail because we really like hammers.
@steve my reasoning about the ActivityPub client/server model is that the servers form just a just a dumb pipeline to dispatch content from clients to other clients.
When servers are just storage, then everything can be much more flexible. Clients can be as expressive as they want and make whichever assumptions about what "good data" looks like, while servers are just dumb pipes that accept and dispatch everything that's a valid JSON-LD document.
-
@steve frankly I disagree with this point. Servers should be simple. We need to move away from the paradigm of custom purpose ActivityPub servers that Mastodon pushed where the client and server are the same service.
Timelines should be orthogonal to the ActivityPub specification and, in my opinion, kept well away from it.
What's the benefit for my client application to know what your server's preferred timeline representation is?
Let's not go down the path where everything looks like a nail because we really like hammers.
@mariusor @smallcircles @evan I think you read something other than what I wrote.
. I’m describing *user-defined* timelines where the heavy lifting is done in a server. That server would be (or could be) *general purpose* and not specific to an activity domain. I definitely wasn’t suggesting a monolithic, tightly-coupled client/server architecture. I want my timeline definitions to be portable and interoperable. -
@mariusor @smallcircles @evan I think you read something other than what I wrote.
. I’m describing *user-defined* timelines where the heavy lifting is done in a server. That server would be (or could be) *general purpose* and not specific to an activity domain. I definitely wasn’t suggesting a monolithic, tightly-coupled client/server architecture. I want my timeline definitions to be portable and interoperable.@steve apologies, I take "server" in the context of ActivityPub discussion to be an "ActivityPub server", not all the other web-servers involved in the process.
And when I say "client", I mean a "consumer of ActivityPub", which as you say, many times is also a web server.
-
@steve apologies, I take "server" in the context of ActivityPub discussion to be an "ActivityPub server", not all the other web-servers involved in the process.
And when I say "client", I mean a "consumer of ActivityPub", which as you say, many times is also a web server.
> And when I say "client", I mean a "consumer of ActivityPub", which as you say, many times is also a web server.
Indeed. Another term that I see people use in different meaning, also when talking about C2S.
In one meaning the user device is referred to, that you might need to hole-punch with to have a full AP server, or which depends on a server relay.
And the other meaning as role. As in client/server roles, pure conceptual, and which might swap too.
-
> And when I say "client", I mean a "consumer of ActivityPub", which as you say, many times is also a web server.
Indeed. Another term that I see people use in different meaning, also when talking about C2S.
In one meaning the user device is referred to, that you might need to hole-punch with to have a full AP server, or which depends on a server relay.
And the other meaning as role. As in client/server roles, pure conceptual, and which might swap too.
@smallcircles @mariusor @evan C2S is described (too loosely, but…) in the ActivityPub spec. There is a client and server aspect to C2S. A C2S client is software that uses that protocol/API to interact with an ActivityPub C2S-capable server (general or domain-specific). When I refer to an ActivityPub Client, I mean software using C2S rather than consumers of ActivityPub-related data in general.
-
@smallcircles @mariusor @evan C2S is described (too loosely, but…) in the ActivityPub spec. There is a client and server aspect to C2S. A C2S client is software that uses that protocol/API to interact with an ActivityPub C2S-capable server (general or domain-specific). When I refer to an ActivityPub Client, I mean software using C2S rather than consumers of ActivityPub-related data in general.
@steve out of curiousity why do you make a difference between a consumer of AcitvityPub (assumedly you mean something that fetches ActivityPub using HTTP GET) and a C2S client?
My assumption is that if something fetches ActivityPub objects and is capable of rendering it to another representation for its users, that's a client to server client.
Client to server has two sections: consumer and producer and I think anything that fulfills any of those can be called a C2S client...
-
@steve out of curiousity why do you make a difference between a consumer of AcitvityPub (assumedly you mean something that fetches ActivityPub using HTTP GET) and a C2S client?
My assumption is that if something fetches ActivityPub objects and is capable of rendering it to another representation for its users, that's a client to server client.
Client to server has two sections: consumer and producer and I think anything that fulfills any of those can be called a C2S client...
@mariusor @smallcircles @evan C2S has client-side and server-side aspects (different, but overlapping, behavioral requirements, etc.). Both sides consume *and* produce AP data (pull and push for S2S, currently only pull for C2S). Fetching AP data (URI dereferencing) is common to both C2S and S2S.
-
@mariusor @smallcircles @evan C2S has client-side and server-side aspects (different, but overlapping, behavioral requirements, etc.). Both sides consume *and* produce AP data (pull and push for S2S, currently only pull for C2S). Fetching AP data (URI dereferencing) is common to both C2S and S2S.
@steve yes, but something dumb that only fetches a URL and converts the resulting ActivityPub into a valid other type of representation is a valid client in my opinion. That's what I mean, was that unclear?
-
@mariusor @smallcircles @evan C2S has client-side and server-side aspects (different, but overlapping, behavioral requirements, etc.). Both sides consume *and* produce AP data (pull and push for S2S, currently only pull for C2S). Fetching AP data (URI dereferencing) is common to both C2S and S2S.
@steve @mariusor @smallcircles @evan this is a huge thread, but off-cuff comment: C2S will need a "proxy" where you can fetch a remote object **with** identity/authentication
-
@steve @mariusor @smallcircles @evan this is a huge thread, but off-cuff comment: C2S will need a "proxy" where you can fetch a remote object **with** identity/authentication
@thisismissem I have just implemented that for the GoActivityPub servers and it's easier than it sounds.
The only important step required is to convert the client authorization token (presumably an OAuth2 bearer token) to a valid actor and then further to a valid Private Key with which to sign the remote request. After that the only thing remaining is to pipe verbatim the received response to the client...
-
@steve @mariusor @smallcircles @evan this is a huge thread, but off-cuff comment: C2S will need a "proxy" where you can fetch a remote object **with** identity/authentication
@thisismissem @steve @mariusor @smallcircles @evan
Just checking my memory.. this concept exists already, yes?
Are you just saying that the new API spec should include this? Or am I missing something?
-
@steve yes, but something dumb that only fetches a URL and converts the resulting ActivityPub into a valid other type of representation is a valid client in my opinion. That's what I mean, was that unclear?
@mariusor @smallcircles @evan I *think* it’s
clear. I agree it’s a kind of “client”, just not necessarily a C2S client. -
@thisismissem @steve @mariusor @smallcircles @evan
Just checking my memory.. this concept exists already, yes?
Are you just saying that the new API spec should include this? Or am I missing something?
@benpate @thisismissem @steve @mariusor @smallcircles
Yes, proxyUrl already exists. There's a use case here:
Remote object access · Issue #10 · swicg/activitypub-api
"As an ActivityPub client developer, I want a reliable method for accessing objects on remote servers with the user's authorization, so I can read private or followers-only data."
GitHub (github.com)
The only other way I've seen this use case discussed is with client-side HTTP Signature keys. There's some kind of negotiation between the server and the client, and then the client can make requests to remote servers using HTTP Signature and a key it controls.
-
@mariusor @smallcircles @evan I *think* it’s
clear. I agree it’s a kind of “client”, just not necessarily a C2S client.@steve OK, but why?
I feel like I explained my position relatively clearly, I would like to understand yours, even though I feel some animosity has started to crop up.
-
@mariusor @smallcircles @evan I think you read something other than what I wrote.
. I’m describing *user-defined* timelines where the heavy lifting is done in a server. That server would be (or could be) *general purpose* and not specific to an activity domain. I definitely wasn’t suggesting a monolithic, tightly-coupled client/server architecture. I want my timeline definitions to be portable and interoperable.@steve @mariusor @smallcircles so, a client could send some kind of definition for the timeline ("only Create/Image or Create/Video activities from the inbox where the image is tagged 'caturday'") and then the server sorts data into that timeline? That sounds like a neat feature.
However, I think there might be some definitions that are so common that we could just define them in a spec, like `notifications`.
-
@steve OK, but why?
I feel like I explained my position relatively clearly, I would like to understand yours, even though I feel some animosity has started to crop up.
@mariusor @smallcircles @evan No animosity here. However, I’m not sure how to explain it more clearly. I’m referring to C2S as described in chapter 6 of the ActivityPub specification (and the conformance profiles in Section 2.1). It sounded to me like you’re using a more general definition of “client”, which is fine, just different in significant ways (if it only dereferences and renders AP data).
-
@mariusor @smallcircles @evan No animosity here. However, I’m not sure how to explain it more clearly. I’m referring to C2S as described in chapter 6 of the ActivityPub specification (and the conformance profiles in Section 2.1). It sounded to me like you’re using a more general definition of “client”, which is fine, just different in significant ways (if it only dereferences and renders AP data).
He he, language is hard. A case of terminology overload and clashing terms. Domain driven design has the clearly defined bounded context here which is the scope within which terms are valid. Forming a consistency boundary. These context lines are blurred in fediverse talk.
-
@thisismissem I have just implemented that for the GoActivityPub servers and it's easier than it sounds.
The only important step required is to convert the client authorization token (presumably an OAuth2 bearer token) to a valid actor and then further to a valid Private Key with which to sign the remote request. After that the only thing remaining is to pipe verbatim the received response to the client...
@mariusor @steve @smallcircles @evan well, your server *knows* it's access token to user mapping, so then you're just doing authorised fetch as that actor from server side
