Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Tuesday, 11-Feb-2025 19:23:12 JST silverpill

   @helge Testing an actor seems to be very straightforward. Just validate the JSON document against the schema.
   Serving actor documents, sending and receiving activities, signing requests and resolving webfinger - these tasks are performed by servers and clients. They can be tested too.

   It might look more complicated if we embrace the view that requests are made by actors (as in actor model?). But I believe this view is wrong, despite being promoted by ActivityPub specification.

   • Embed this notice
     silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Wednesday, 12-Feb-2025 03:20:02 JST silverpill

     in reply to

     • Steve Bate

     @steve @helge I can't find any place where specification states that activities are processed by actors. It states (on multiple occasions) that activities are delivered to actors and received by actors, but not processed. So I should probably take my word back. Still, this interpretation of the specification seems to be very common.

   • Embed this notice
     Steve Bate (steve@social.technoetic.com)'s status on Wednesday, 12-Feb-2025 03:20:03 JST Steve Bate

     in reply to

     @silverpill @helge I think the issue is more the view that requests are *processed* by actors (versus a server). Do you know of any place in the specification that states that an actor processes the activities arriving in its inbox?

     I believe some of the spec authors are confusing the issue by claiming AP is based on Hewitt’s actor model.