Stan Sieler wrote:

> Steve writes:
> >> patch has evidently altered the PURGE entrypoint functionality.
> ...
> > If it wasn't documented adequately in the Communicator, it's probably OK to
> > complain about that, but we don't want to harass HP for doing, in this case,
> > exactly what we asked them to do, exactly the way we asked them to do it.
>
> Sorry, but there's no evidence apparent that we asked them to do "exactly"
> anything.
>
> The SIGIMAGE enhancement list has always been somewhat less than precise.
> (e.g., the 'what *does* "FIELD A = FIELD B" really mean?' debate this week
> at SIGIMAGE.)
>
> In the case of this enhancement, it was probably something like "add
> confirmation before purging a database".  Unfortunately, that fails
> to specify: interactive runs?  batch runs?  runs with stdin/stdlist that
> aren't duplicative/interactive?  And, yes, runs with the "PURGE" entrypoint.
>
> In retrospect, it would appear that the enhancement should probably have
> been something like:
>
>    1) if using PURGE entrypoint, don't ask for confirmation
>
>    2) if in batch, or stdin/stdlist aren't duplicative/interactive pair,
>       then don't ask for confirmation.
>
>    3) otherwise, ask for confirmation.
>
> --
> Stan Sieler                                          [log in to unmask]
>                                      http://www.allegro.com/sieler.html

Hello,

In the current implementation of 'confirm purge and erase', the interactive and
batch mode of operation
has indeed been taken care of. However, the 'entrypoint' functionality was not
taken care of. Is it OK
now to fix this, as some of the users might have changed their scripts/
applications to accomodate
this?

Thank you all for bringing out this inconsistency.
--
Regards,
Vikram