MuleSoft MCPA-Level-1 Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

Explanation

Correct Answer: A higher number of discoverable API-related assets in the application network.

*****************************************

>> We do NOT get faster response times in fine-grained approach when compared to coarse-grained approach.

>> In fact, we get faster response times from a network having coarse-grained APIs compared to a network having fine-grained APIs model. The reasons are below.

Fine-grained approach:

1. will have more APIs compared to coarse-grained

2. So, more orchestration needs to be done to achieve a functionality in business process.

3. Which means, lots of API calls to be made. So, more connections will needs to be established. So, obviously more hops, more network i/o, more number of integration points compared to coarse-grained approach where fewer APIs with bulk functionality embedded in them.

4. That is why, because of all these extra hops and added latencies, fine-grained approach will have bit more response times compared to coarse-grained.

5. Not only added latencies and connections, there will be more resources used up in fine-grained approach due to more number of APIs.

That's why, fine-grained APIs are good in a way to expose more number of resuable assets in your network and make them discoverable. However, needs more maintenance, taking care of integration points, connections, resources with a little compromise w.r.t network hops and response times.

Explanation

Correct Answer: IP whitelist

*****************************************

>> OAuth 2.0 access token and Client ID enforcement policies are VERY common to apply on Experience APIs as API consumers need to register and access the APIs using one of these mechanisms

>> JSON threat protection is also VERY common policy to apply on Experience APIs to prevent bad or suspicious payloads hitting the API implementations.

>> IP whitelisting policy is usually very common in Process and System APIs to only whitelist the IP range inside the local VPC. But also applied occassionally on some experience APIs where the End User/ API Consumers are FIXED.

>> When we know the API consumers upfront who are going to access certain Experience APIs, then we can request for static IPs from such consumers and whitelist them to prevent anyone else hitting the API.

However, the experience API given in the question/ scenario is intended to work with a consumer mobile phone or tablet application. Which means, there is no way we can know all possible IPs that are to be whitelisted as mobile phones and tablets can so many in number and any device in the city/state/country/globe.

So, It is very LEAST LIKELY to apply IP Whitelisting on such Experience APIs whose consumers are typically Mobile Phones or Tablets.

Explanation

Correct Answer: The CloudHub shared load balancer

*****************************************

The scenario in this question can be split as below:

>> There are 3 CloudHub workers (So, there are already good number of workers to handle high volume of requests)

>> The workers are not using static IP addresses (So, one CANNOT use customer load-balancing solutions without static IPs)

>> Looking for most cost-effective component to load balance the client requests among the workers.

Based on the above details given in the scenario:

>> Runtime autoscaling is NOT at all cost-effective as it incurs extra cost. Most over, there are already 3 workers running which is a good number.

>> We cannot go for a customer-hosted load balancer as it is also NOT most cost-effective (needs custom load balancer to maintain and licensing) and same time the Mule App is not having Static IP Addresses which limits from going with custom load balancing.

>> An API Proxy is irrelevant there as it has no role to play w.r.t handling high volumes or load balancing.

So, the only right option to go with and fits the purpose of scenario being most cost-effective is - using a CloudHub Shared Load Balancer.