C2S/S2S Update Issues

[trwnh]

@stevebate

The second resource (the update description) also has an “id” property,

If it’s a C2S Update, it should not have an id. C2S activities don;t specify an id; the id is assigned by the server after the activity has been POSTed to the outbox.

@stevebate

Are you saying that someone implementing C2S Update behavior should follow the S2S Update semantics?

No, I’m saying that C2S Update and S2S Update are different; the server should process a C2S Update, but publish an S2S Update. C2S Update follows “partial update” semantics. S2S Update does not.

@stevebate

If someone is looking at the first Update activity it’s not going to be what was originally posted. This is where this topic slightly overlaps with the collection discussion. By using “target” for the replacement target, the historical replacement description (the “object” referent) can remain immutable.

This is wrong. target is not defined on activities of type Update. If you’re dealing with Collections, you use Add / Remove / Move. These activities have a defined target.

@stevebate

What about something like the following?

@stevebate

This would tell the server to replace the existing “https://example.test/myobject” with the content of “https://example.test/myobject-version-3” (maybe the remote server has a special versioning feature). The object could be inlined as a performance optimization, but it could also be dereferenced from the remote server.

This is possible with a different activity (someone proposed as:Replace once) but I’d hesitate to recommend it. This particular point runs tangent to the other discussion about dereferencing a Create from a different/remote domain: Who says objects cannot be created elsewhere?

Other relevant discussions:

• Revision ID? Revision ID? · Issue #188 · w3c/activitypub · GitHub
• as:Replace proposal: something replaced something else `as:Replace` proposal: something replaced something else · Issue #538 · w3c/activitystreams · GitHub