R: ActivityPump API

I'am also interested in knowing the main differences wrt OpenSocial Social API [1] for pubishing activities and/or create relationships using json.

I very much like the "inbox" concept, which does not exist for activities in opensocial (but does exist for messages) and that captures well a certain type of information.
I also understand that this type of feed could be advertised in webfinger and exposed to remote servers in case of federation in parallel/alternative to the #updates-from atom feed. Pubsub is already evolving towards non-atom content so only salmon seems to be missing for json to rule fsw...

walter

[1] http://opensocial-resources.googlecode.com/svn/spec/2.5/Social-API-Server.xml

Da: Melvin Carvalho [mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com]
Inviato: giovedì 20 settembre 2012 13.18
A: Evan Prodromou
Cc: public-fedsocweb@w3.org
Oggetto: Re: ActivityPump API


On 20 September 2012 12:58, Evan Prodromou <evan@status.net<mailto:evan@status.net>> wrote:
I thought people on this list might find the new API document I wrote for the ActivityPump interesting:

https://github.com/evanp/activitypump/blob/master/API.md

It's a simple (I think) API that follows the patterns of Atom Publishing Protocol but uses Activity Streams JSON as a feed and entry format. (It's based on work I did on StatusNet, which has a similar API based on the Activity Streams Atom serialization.)

tl;dr version: each user has two primary streams (represented as Activity Streams multi-page collections): an outbox that contains activities they've done, and an inbox that contains the activities of people they follow. To make something happen, you POST an activity to the outbox.

One side-benefit is that the inbox makes a nice endpoint for delivery of activities from remote servers. This serves the same purpose as PubSubHubbub and Salmon in the OStatus stack -- but considerably easier, I think. It requires Dialback authentication, however, which is a) easy but b) only a few weeks old.

I'd love any feedback here or as a github issue. There are plenty of test cases in the ActivityPump repository.

Thanks for sharing.

I like the idea of POSTing to a a URI and it's something we're doing more and more with the Pingback Protocol [1]

With pingback we have started with a simple message system that has 3 fields

1. to
2. from
3. message

But is extensible to almost any type messaging.

A question about the body:



{

    "verb": "follow",

    "object": {

        "id": "acct:ken@coding.example",

        "objectType": "person"

    }

}
The verb is a follow of ken, but it doesnt say who is doing the following.  Would it not be more elegant to provide both the follower and who is being followed, in the message.  In this way you have a low coupling with transport mechanisms.


[1] http://www.w3.org/community/rww/wiki/Pingback


-Evan



Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie.

This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.

[cid:00000000000000000000000000000003@TI.Disclaimer]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non è necessario.