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

Understanding the Need for Cross-API Monitoring:

The Center for Enablement (C4E) needs to investigate potential technical issues across multiple APIs in the application network that may be causing customers to abandon their carts.

This requires a solution that allows viewing metrics across several APIs in real-time to identify any performance issues or bottlenecks.

Evaluating Anypoint Platform Features:

Built-in Dashboards: Anypoint Platform provides built-in dashboards in Anypoint Monitoring, allowing teams to view metrics from multiple APIs in a single interface. This feature is designed to monitor API performance, latency, errors, and throughput, and is ideal for tracking performance across all layers of the application network.

Custom Dashboards: While custom dashboards allow for more tailored views, the built-in dashboards already aggregate metrics for multiple APIs, making it unnecessary to build a custom solution for this scenario.

Functional Monitoring: This feature is used to set up tests to monitor specific API functionality and uptime but is not suited for tracking metrics across multiple APIs in real-time.

API Manager: API Manager primarily focuses on managing API policies, contracts, and access control rather than providing detailed, real-time metrics across the entire application network.

Conclusion:

Option B (Built-in dashboards) is the best choice because it provides a comprehensive view of metrics from all APIs involved, enabling the C4E team to quickly identify any issues that may be contributing to abandoned shopping carts.

Refer to MuleSoft’s documentation on Anypoint Monitoring and built-in dashboards for more details on configuring and using these dashboards effectively.

Explanation

Correct Answer: Allow System APIs to return data that is NOT currently required by the identified Process or Experience APIs.

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

>> All customizations for the end-user application should be handled in "Experience API" only. Not in Process API

>> We should use tiered approach but NOT always by creating exactly one API for each of the 3 layers. Experience APIs might be one but Process APIs and System APIs are often more than one. System APIs for sure will be more than one all the time as they are the smallest modular APIs built in front of end systems.

>> Process APIs can call System APIs as well as other Process APIs. There is no such anti-design pattern in API-Led connectivity saying Process APIs should not call other Process APIs.

So, the right answer in the given set of options that makes sense as per API-Led connectivity principles is to allow System APIs to return data that is NOT currently required by the identified Process or Experience APIs. This way, some future Process APIs can make use of that data from System APIs and we need NOT touch the System layer APIs again and again.

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.