MuleSoft-Platform-Architect-I Exam Dumps : Salesforce Certified MuleSoft Platform Architect (Mule-Arch-201)

Explanation

Correct Answer: Anypoint Runtime Fabric

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

>> When a customer is already having an Azure environment, It is not at all an ideal approach to go with hybrid model having some Mule Runtimes hosted on Azure and some on MuleSoft. This is unnecessary and useless.

>> CloudHub is a Mulesoft-hosted Runtime plane and is on AWS. We cannot customize to point CloudHub to customer's Azure environment.

>> Anypoint Platform for Pivotal Cloud Foundry is specifically for infrastructure provided by Pivotal Cloud Foundry

>> Anypoint Runtime Fabric is right answer as it is a container service that automates the deployment and orchestration of Mule applications and API gateways. Runtime Fabric runs within a customer-managed infrastructure on AWS, Azure, virtual machines (VMs), and bare-metal servers.

-Some of the capabilities of Anypoint Runtime Fabric include:

-Isolation between applications by running a separate Mule runtime per application.

-Ability to run multiple versions of Mule runtime on the same set of resources.

-Scaling applications across multiple replicas.

-Automated application fail-over.

-Application management with Anypoint Runtime Manager.

Explanation

Correct Answer: Implement different system APIs named createCustomer, amendCustomer, retrieveCustomer and suspendCustomer as they are modular and has seperation of concerns

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

>> It is quite normal to have a single API and different Verb + Resource combinations. However, this fits well for an Experience API or a Process API but not a best architecture style for System APIs. So, option with just one customerManagement API is not the best choice here.

>> The option with APIs in createCustomerInCRMZ format is next close choice w.r.t modularization and less maintenance but the naming of APIs is directly coupled with the legacy system. A better foreseen approach would be to name your APIs by abstracting the backend system names as it allows seamless replacement/migration of any backend system anytime. So, this is not the correct choice too.

>> createCustomer, amendCustomer, retrieveCustomer and suspendCustomer is the right approach and is the best fit compared to other options as they are both modular and same time got the names decoupled from backend system and it has covered all requirements a System API needs.

Explanation

Correct Answer: Invoke the system API deployed to the primary environment; add timeout and retry logic to the process API to avoid intermittent failures; if it still fails, invoke the system API deployed to the DR environment

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

There is one important consideration to be noted in the question which is - System API in DR environment provides only 20% of the rate limiting offered by the primary environment. So, comparitively, very less calls will be allowed into the DR environment API opposed to its primary environment. With this in mind, lets analyse what is the right and best fault-tolerant invocation strategy.

1. Invoking both the system APIs in parallel is definitely NOT a feasible approach because of the 20% limitation we have on DR environment. Calling in parallel every time would easily and quickly exhaust the rate limits on DR environment and may not give chance to genuine intermittent error scenarios to let in during the time of need.

2. Another option given is suggesting to add timeout and retry logic to process API while invoking primary environment's system API. This is good so far. However, when all retries failed, the option is suggesting to invoke the copy of process API on DR environment which is not right or recommended. Only system API is the one to be considered for fallback and not the whole process API. Process APIs usually have lot of heavy orchestration calling many other APIs which we do not want to repeat again by calling DR's process API. So this option is NOT right.

3. One more option given is suggesting to add the retry (no timeout) logic to process API to directly retry on DR environment's system API instead of retrying the primary environment system API first. This is not at all a proper fallback. A proper fallback should occur only after all retries are performed and exhausted on Primary environment first. But here, the option is suggesting to directly retry fallback API on first failure itself without trying main API. So, this option is NOT right too.

This leaves us one option which is right and best fit.

- Invoke the system API deployed to the primary environment

- Add Timeout and Retry logic on it in process API

- If it fails even after all retries, then invoke the system API deployed to the DR environment.