isEncrypted tag causes server to not start

[mrpinc]

A colleague of mine is unable to start his version of the server when the <isEncrypted> tag is present in our zone.xml file. The thing is that I use the exact same zone file and have no problem running the server. We are both running the latest version of the server (2.11.0). The only difference between our servers is that he is using the latest standalone installer and I have been upgrading my version using patches since 2.0.

Here is the stack trace of the error:

Code: Select all

10 Feb 2016 | 09:19:56,915 | ERROR | main | smartfoxserver.v2.SmartFoxServer |     | com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.ConversionException:
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Exception: com.thoughtworks.xstream.converters.ConversionException
Message: isEncrypted : isEncrypted : isEncrypted : isEncrypted
---- Debugging information ----
message             : isEncrypted : isEncrypted
cause-exception     : com.thoughtworks.xstream.mapper.CannotResolveClassException
cause-message       : isEncrypted : isEncrypted
class               : com.smartfoxserver.v2.config.ZoneSettings
required-type       : com.smartfoxserver.v2.config.ZoneSettings
path                : /zone/isEncrypted
-------------------------------
Description: Unexpected error during Server boot. The server cannot start.
Solution: Please email us the content of this error message, including the stack trace to support[at]smartfoxserver.com
+--- --- ---+
Stack Trace:
+--- --- ---+
com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.TreeUnmarshaller.convert(TreeUnmarshaller.java:89)
com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.AbstractReferenceUnmarshaller.convert(AbstractReferenceUnmarshaller.java:63)
com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.TreeUnmarshaller.convertAnother(TreeUnmarshaller.java:76)
com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.TreeUnmarshaller.convertAnother(TreeUnmarshaller.java:60)
com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.TreeUnmarshaller.start(TreeUnmarshaller.java:137)
com.thoughtworks.xstream.core.AbstractTreeMarshallingStrategy.unmarshal(AbstractTreeMarshallingStrategy.java:33)
com.thoughtworks.xstream.XStream.unmarshal(XStream.java:923)
com.thoughtworks.xstream.XStream.unmarshal(XStream.java:909)
com.thoughtworks.xstream.XStream.fromXML(XStream.java:861)
com.smartfoxserver.v2.config.DefaultConfigLoader.loadZonesConfiguration(DefaultConfigLoader.java:67)
com.smartfoxserver.v2.config.SFSConfigurator.loadZonesConfiguration(SFSConfigurator.java:134)
com.smartfoxserver.v2.entities.managers.SFSZoneManager.initializeZones(SFSZoneManager.java:233)
com.smartfoxserver.v2.SmartFoxServer.start(SmartFoxServer.java:266)
com.smartfoxserver.v2.Main.main(Main.java:27)
sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(Unknown Source)
sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(Unknown Source)
java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Unknown Source)
com.exe4j.runtime.LauncherEngine.launch(Unknown Source)
com.exe4j.runtime.WinLauncher.main(Unknown Source)
com.install4j.runtime.launcher.WinLauncher.main(Unknown Source)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


[Lapo]

Hello,

A colleague of mine is unable to start his version of the server when the <isEncrypted> tag is present in our zone.xml file. The thing is that I use the exact same zone file and have no problem running the server. We are both running the latest version of the server (2.11.0). The only difference between our servers is that he is using the latest standalone installer and I have been upgrading my version using patches since 2.0.

The latest standalone installer available is ver 2.9.0 which does not support encryption. So if your coworker is running the latest installer he doesn't have a recent enough version to use encryption, hence the runtime error.

Also as a side note: it's not possible to update from version 2.0.0 up to 2.11.0 only with patches. We have released several full installers such as 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.9 that were mandatory for upgrading or use with subsequent patches.

I'd recommend installing a fresh copy of the server via the 2.9 installer + 2.11 patch.
You can do this in another folder, test that it works and then remove the previous installation.

cheers

[mrpinc]

My colleague was indeed on version 2.9 and that was the culprit. I apologize for posting incorrect info. Thanks for the prompt assistance.

[Lapo]

No problem. You actually said that he was running the latest installer, which is 2.9. So you were right

cheers