On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 06:12:47AM -0500, Daniel Veillard wrote:
+static int +cmdPoolDelete(vshControl * ctl, vshCmd * cmd) +{ + virStoragePoolPtr pool; + int ret = TRUE; + char *name; + + if (!vshConnectionUsability(ctl, ctl->conn, TRUE)) + return FALSE; + + if (!(pool = vshCommandOptPool(ctl, cmd, "pool", &name))) + return FALSE; + + if (virStoragePoolDelete(pool, 0) == 0) { + vshPrint(ctl, _("Pool %s deleteed\n"), name); + } else { + vshError(ctl, FALSE, _("Failed to delete pool %s"), name); + ret = FALSE; + virStoragePoolFree(pool); + } + + return ret; +}
just wondering, assuming the Delete operation really destroys on-disk storage and potentially a large set, shouldn't we add some kind of interactive confirmation ? Contrary to destroying a domain where state is preserved on the disk and rather easy to recover and destroying a network which has very little state, maybe here we need to do something special, optionally adding a -f flag to bypass confirmation like in rm.
Well the 'rm' command doesn't do confirmation by default. It only asks for confirmation if you add the '-i' flag. The '-f' flag lets you them override the '-i' flag. Dan. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|