ActiveResource should support URI::Generic

I'll try that as an attachment

Seems fine; in fact, seems like the "truer" test of what's intended, but I can't see setting the connection URL to anything other than HTTP or HTTPS.

Maybe the use case is using ActiveResource to find things on the same server? In that case, you might pass a root-relative instead of absolute string to URI::parse (like '/my-other-app/'), which would return a URI::Generic. In that case, though, SSL (a) would be unnecessary and (b) still couldn't be determined from the URI.

My use case was allowing configuration with a YAML file like so:

# See URI::Generic#build for possible configuration options
scheme: http
host: 127.0.0.1
userinfo: 'username:password'
port: 3000
path: /

Then you read it into ActiveResource like so:

CONFIG = YAML.load(ERB.new(File.read(File.join(RAILS_ROOT, 'config', 'intranet.yml'))).result).with_indifferent_access
self.site = URI::Generic.build(CONFIG)

Generic is necessary because developers will be using http on localhost, while production servers will use https.

HTH

Why not do this:

in conf/intranet.yml:

active_resource_url: http://user:password@127.0.0.1:3000/path

in loader.rb:

CONFIG = YAML.load(ERB.new(File.read(File.join(RAILS_ROOT, 'config',

'intranet.yml'))).result).with_indifferent_access

self.site = URI::parse(CONFIG[:active_resource_url)

That way, the developers can specify whatever they want, and you

always get an HTTP or HTTPS URI.

-James

yeah, that's essentially what I'm doing now, except that I approached it by modifying

self.site = URI::Generic.build(CONFIG)

to

self.site = URI::Generic.build(CONFIG).to_s

...exploiting the fact that self.site= will call URI.parse for me. IMO it's just a little nicer in that it still allows specifying the url in its various parts with labels (clearer), and that it keeps CONFIG namespaced to the ActiveResource descendant. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

The point isn't that there isn't a workaround, but that the duck typing approach is just slightly more flexible and less surprising.

No, I like your fix. My point was that the fix is really for the sake of "doing the right thing" rather than providing some unavailable functionality.

absolutely 100% agreed ;)