invalid client checksum

2758
3
05-19-2010 01:14 AM
RomboutVerwimp
New Contributor
We have a client application build on top of the ArcGIS server mobile ADF.   We have difficulties to get the map synchronisation stable.  We continuously get a "invalid client checksum" in the logs of our ArcGIS server, so the sync process itself is not taking place...  According to the ESRI documentation this is due to a change on the database schema or the mxd-schema but we know that neither the mxd, neither the database schema has been modified since the publishment of the mobile service

Does anyone had a similar problem?  Any suggestions for a solution? We would like to understand better what is being evaluated in the initial startup of the synchronisation.

Thx!
Reply
0 Kudos
3 Replies
MaximilianGlas
Esri Contributor
Hi,

we had similar problems for a long time. The main problem was not to know, when checksum was changing.
Then we got informations, on what the checksum is depending and when it changes:

Map

  • Full extent of the map (Xmin, Ymin, Xmax, Ymax)

  • Units

  • Spatial reference

  • Number of workspaces

  • Layer count


Layer

  • Layer type

  • Layer index

  • Workspace index

  • Is versioned or not

  • Extent (removed in 9.3.1)


RasterLayer

  • Raster width

  • Raster height


FeatureLayer

  • Feature class schema

  • Field count

  • Field name

  • Alias field name

  • Field length

  • Field flag (type, editable, null}

  • Subtype code


In our case the problem was a changing map extent which was redefined automatically because new features were outside the old defined extent.

Hope this helps.

Greets, Max
Reply
0 Kudos
Jitendrudulacaraju
New Contributor
I am getting the same error.
But from the developer machine it works and from the deployment machine it fails.
Any clues?
Reply
0 Kudos
Jitendrudulacaraju
New Contributor
I have got over with this problem. Simply changed the extent of the MXD by making the a smaller scale  map and restarting the service. Temp fix, but is it permanent?? Have to see.
Reply
0 Kudos