Flomp
feature request: Federation
Hi, is there any chance to let different servers connect to each other, so that you can host your own one but still see all the other people's tracks? ActivityPub might be the way.
Would be great.
Cheers L.B.Q.R.
I came here with the same question and found #196.
Not sure if @mfbehrens started looking into this already, but I would also be happy to chime in some of my dev-time, to explore a possible route towards a federated future.
I have not started anything yet. So feel free to do so, I currently got some other projects to work on.
I would love if wanderer could store data in a decentralized way. As mentioned in the other issue I'm completely unexperienced in implementing any such protocol. So please feel free to open a PR and we can start from there.
I started working on it..progress can be tracked here: https://github.com/Flomp/wanderer/tree/federation
It will still take some time until I have a first beta. The changes are more involved than I thought.
I'll report back.
Hej 👋 I'm unsure whether this is the proper place to raise this (after all I'm super new to this project), but the federation/activity pub part sparked my interest ... and somehow makes me wonder.
And first of all, thank you for taking the time to add federation 👍
Given that the federation code is based on the Activity Pub protocol, ... and that in the Fediverse usually it's possible to follow over applicaton boundaries, i.e. a Mastodon user may follow a PeerTube account ... do you consider this in or out of scope? Or put differently, should only Wanderer instances be capable of following other Wanderer instances, ... or shall a Mastodon user be able to follow a Wanderer account (and then maybe see the images and be able to comment, but not see the summit log)?
If the latter is not a goal anyways, kindly ignore the rest please. Otherwise I wonder whether this is going in the right direction by introducing a custom/proprietary vocabulary, like e.g. the type=trail stuff. Or at least, to me, it feels like it's proprietary (the @context part seems to be missing also, so it's at least not pointing to some kind of official spec)
... next-best standard would IMHO be the Trip object that's defined on schema.org here -> https://schema.org/Trip
Given that likely none of the existing apps properly support Trip (nor Trail) object, and likely would be slow to adopt ... I also wonder if you have considered sharing as type=Note and piggyback the Trip/Trail onto the Note ... so that Mastodon/Friendica/Pixelfed/whatever users see the part that's federated within the Note ... and Wanderer (and maybe others in the future) can pick up the extra attributes nevertheless.
Added in v0.17.0. Everything is a "Note" now. So there should be no compatibility issues with other federated services.
Added in v0.17.0. Everything is a "Note" now. So there should be no compatibility issues with other federated services.
@Flomp You are sending both Note and Trail? Cause when parsing an outbox, I see type trail: which I prefer :) https://trails.tchncs.de/api/v1/activitypub/activity/ennspibn91cgcdt.
If you are interested in creating adding @context in the JSON and defining the Trail type, e.g. via a FEP, I am happy to assist.
https://trails.tchncs.de/api/v1/activitypub/activity/ennspibn91cgcdt was likely created on an old version of the beta image. New trails should all be Notes.
I absolutely agree that it would be cleaner to declare a custom Trail type. But I agree with @stesie that other platforms will likely not adapt anytime soon giving the moderate size of this project. And I wanted actvities to show up on mastodon.
@Flomp I encourage you to try adding it to the list of converted object types as happened with Event too https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/pull/12637/files and adding a summary to the object.
I am dealing with Event mostly, and know this situation quite good...
Not sure if helpful, but maybe you aren't aware of https://panoramax.openstreetmap.fr already. They host a federated street level imagery service that is getting some traction. The servers work together to split up the huge storage capacity.
@Flomp can we close this issue? Federation is a feature now, and improvements or changes might be better tracked in new issues?
