News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Tangled – We need a federation of forges. Parent comment

Re:Tangled – We need a federation of forges by compyman on Wednesday April 29, 2026 @10:28AM (#47948960)
Reading that - I'm really not sure that AT Protocol has a much better story there either.

(as I understand it) the data has to live in a PDS, PDS are keyed by accounts, so you are similarly stymied for collaborative projects? I guess AT Proto is still a real work in progress so maybe that story has improved since the last time I checked it out.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Tangled – We need a federation of forges by pfraze on Wednesday April 29, 2026 @10:36AM (#47949062)
Yeah the problems they seemed to have were over collaborative data structures with permissions. You’re right about how atproto solves that, which means you’re using CRDTs if you need to collaborate. If that’s a fit mismatch, I’d tell people to just appoint api servers which wrap a repo and provide the needed semantics.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Tangled – We need a federation of forges by knowtheory on Wednesday April 29, 2026 @10:32AM (#47948992)
Yeah, capability for group permissions is a key part of the work happening on permissioned data in ATproto right now.

https://dholms.leaflet.pub/3meluqcwky22a

https://dholms.leaflet.pub/3mfrsbcn2gk2a

https://dholms.leaflet.pub/3mguviy6iks2a

https://dholms.leaflet.pub/3mhj6bcqats2o

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Tangled – We need a federation of forges by nerdypepper on Wednesday April 29, 2026 @10:39AM (#47949094)
> But federated authorization is one of the things ActivityPub doesn't define, and leaves it to us to figure out.

this is the key bit, atproto has this. sidecar services like knot can use service authentication[0] for authenticated requests.

[0]: https://atproto.com/guides/auth

[ Parent | on HN ]