silverpill@silverpill@mitra.social: @reiver Duck typing is great. I wrote a FEP about it<br><br><a class="link-in-note" href="https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/2277/fep-2277.md" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/2277/fep-2277.md</a>

Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout

Note Detail

@reiver ⊼ (Charles) :batman:@reiver@mastodon.social (2026-04-27 01:34:28)
What makes an ActivityPub Actor an Actor?

I think it is probably a bad idea to just restrict it to things with 'type': "Application", "Group", "Organization", "Person", and "Service". Restricting it to just those would mean you couldn't have new actor types (and sub-types) in the future.

So then, do we do it in a duck-typing way? And if "yes", how?

Maybe if something has an "inbox" OR and "outbox" it is an Actor. I.e., it could have just one of those.

#ActivityPub #ActivityStreams #FediDev
---Reply---
silverpill@silverpill@mitra.social (2026-04-27 04:48:21)
@reiver Duck typing is great. I wrote a FEP about it

https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/2277/fep-2277.md


---Replies---

silverpill@silverpill@mitra.social (2026-04-27 04:49:59)
@reiver tl;dr: yes, inbox and outbox is what makes an actor. But other core types (classes) are more complicated.