4 ms·

> This is built into the protocol. I haven't implemented AP from scratch so I may be missing technical details precluding this, but it sounds like it may at le

> This is built into the protocol. I haven't implemented AP from scratch so I may be missing technical details precluding this, but it sounds like it may at least partially be covered by https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/#shared-inbox-delivery https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/#shared-inbox-delivery ... in which case it may be an implementation issue? Mind you, there is liberal use of "MAY" there which I find is always a problem with specs: that would likely lead to mandatory chattiness of outgoing requests if you're federated with a lot of instances without shared inbox support, but should at least solve for incoming.

zaphar 3y ago
In theory it would help. In practice since a server can't rely on this it probably devolves to just ignoring that feature.
- sleepybrett 3y ago
  There can be an interrogation endpoint/message of supported versions/extensions to the base protocol, that's a very normal thing. If it supports bundled delivery, send a single bundle if not send them all individually.
  - zaphar 3y ago
    Yep, And I'm sure there are some instances that do exactly that. But in a distributed protocol you only get the benefit if both sides of a given interaction support the optimization. For something in the spec that is optional you can't rely on it and you aren't forced to implement it so it's not irrational to just ignore it. Which typically means you only get occasional marginal benefit.
    - sleepybrett 3y ago
      i mean it depends. The vast majority of fedi traffic is mastodon. Add it to mastodon it makes an impression and a real difference. At first mastodon to mastodon comms, but others will take notice, it will find it's way into libraries then it's smooth sailing.
    - account42 3y ago
      > Which typically means you only get occasional marginal benefit. Which is why most browser-server communitcation is still limited by HTTP/1.0. Except it isn't. That's not how this works out when there are benefits to all participants to implement these optimizations.
- tedunangst 3y ago
  Instead of baselessly speculating, you could find out that nearly every server uses shared inbox.

zaphar 3y ago

In theory it would help. In practice since a server can't rely on this it probably devolves to just ignoring that feature.

sleepybrett 3y ago
There can be an interrogation endpoint/message of supported versions/extensions to the base protocol, that's a very normal thing. If it supports bundled delivery, send a single bundle if not send them all individually.
- zaphar 3y ago
  Yep, And I'm sure there are some instances that do exactly that. But in a distributed protocol you only get the benefit if both sides of a given interaction support the optimization. For something in the spec that is optional you can't rely on it and you aren't forced to implement it so it's not irrational to just ignore it. Which typically means you only get occasional marginal benefit.
  - sleepybrett 3y ago
    i mean it depends. The vast majority of fedi traffic is mastodon. Add it to mastodon it makes an impression and a real difference. At first mastodon to mastodon comms, but others will take notice, it will find it's way into libraries then it's smooth sailing.
  - account42 3y ago
    > Which typically means you only get occasional marginal benefit. Which is why most browser-server communitcation is still limited by HTTP/1.0. Except it isn't. That's not how this works out when there are benefits to all participants to implement these optimizations.
tedunangst 3y ago
Instead of baselessly speculating, you could find out that nearly every server uses shared inbox.