1. Please take a little time for this simple survey! Thank you for participating!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Dear Pleskians, please read this carefully! New attachments and other rules Thank you!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Dear Pleskians, I really hope that you will share your opinion in this Special topic for chatter about Plesk in the Clouds. Thank you!
    Dismiss Notice

9.5 to 10.2 for XML-RPC: Worth it?

Discussion in 'Plesk 10.x for Linux Issues, Fixes, How-To' started by T10i, Apr 27, 2011.

  1. T10i

    T10i Guest


    My company is using a virtual hosting solution maintained by another company to service our customers. Currently we're on Plesk 9.5 and we're running into problems as we need to manage mail accounts and redirects via XML-RPC, which 9.5 doesn't support for resellers even if they have the proper permissions (which, to my knowledge, is a known bug in 9.5).

    Our hoster is offering to upgrade to 10.2, however they warn us that 10.2 contains unspecified "bugs" and we're using it at our own risk. Now, before we make the jump, I have a few questions:

    - Does 10.2 offer working XML-RPC support for operations like mail/create for resellers?
    - Does 10.2 have any major regressions over 9.5? Is our hoster just being overly careful? In short, can we upgrade to 10.2 and expect everything to work without major issues?


  2. IgorG

    IgorG Forums Analyst Staff Member

    Oct 27, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Novosibirsk, Russia

    Attached Files:

  3. T10i

    T10i Guest

    The patch works beautifully. Thanks.
  4. T10i

    T10i Guest

    I think I may have found an issue. I'm trying to make the following request:

    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
    <packet version="">
    According to the XML Schema the request validates. However, Plesk replies with the error "Unable to find address node [1023]". I think the address node meant is the one in <redirect /> but according to the Schema that node is optional.

    I also can't find anything regarding this error anywhere on the web, which would indicate that it doesn't normally occuṛ, the patch being a likely culprit.