Again, maybe Dmitri can think of counterexamples or reasons this wouldn’t work, but if the “underlying server” (say, Mastodon or *key or *oma) supports a given client and/or multiple clients, that/those client(s) might not necessarily need to know anything about the “redirection Actor”, they could just point to the legacy Actor object (at the “direct” URL) managed by the service provider.
In this sense, if the legacy server is taking in content directly from 7952-unaware clients that only know the “direct Actor id”, the problem arises of how the “indirect Actor” service finds out about these additional objects that it should be tracking and redirecting-- but perhaps I’m out on a limb here and missing something.
- New issue: should indirect Actor microservice pull or should legacy server push if legacy server is still accepting new content after a
copiedTo? Note: this may remain out of scope and just be an implementation choice, or a non-normative suggestion if included.