Is it correct to say the can gracefully handle ActivtyStreams extensions (passing them through to clients and other servers) but cannot, because of their database schema and protocol designs? Or pleroma can't either, because it's using the same restricted client-server protocol?

· · Web · 0 · 0 · 1

@sandro pleroma uses a document storage schema (jsonb within postgres) while mastodon uses a normalized relational database, so pleroma has an advantage in keeping objects verbatim even if they're not understood, at the cost of higher storage requirements.

@Gargron Yeah... Do you have a plan for the day someone has an interesting AS extension, maybe allowing some feature between folks using some popular client (at first, then other clients as they decide to adopt it)? Let's say, polls or events or items-for-sale or end-to-end encryption. I'd hope all servers would pass such stuff through cleanly, if they don't have something to do with it.


It depends on the protocol used. Pleroma is working on implementing the ActivityPub C2S protocol, which will be transparent.

When using the Mastodon or GNU social APIs, you get a translated version, and extensions not understood by Pleroma are dropped.

Mastodon can be adapted to support AS extensions too, but doing so requires more code and, likely, modifications to the database schema to support them.

In *reality* adding support for new activities is probably about the same level of difficulty for either software, but it would require more boilerplate on the Mastodon implementation.
Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!