Re: ActivityPump API

Melvin,

Good question.

Only the user "bwk" can post to his own outbox. So the actor is implied.

You can post with the actor set, like so:

|{
     "actor": {
         "id": "acct:bwk@coding.example",
         "objectType": "person"
     },
     "verb": "follow",
     "object": {
         "id": "acct:ken@coding.example",
         "objectType": "person"
     }
}|

...and it will be checked for validity. If you post with the wrong 
actor, you get an error.

-Evan

On 12-09-20 07:17 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>


-- 
Evan Prodromou, CEO and Founder, StatusNet Inc.
1124 rue Marie-Anne Est #32, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H2J 2B7
E: evan@status.net P: +1-514-554-3826