[Libvir] PATCH: 7/16: virsh core commands

[Daniel P. Berrange]

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  -=|