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

Explanation

Correct Answer: When server-side load-balanced TLS mutual authentication is required between API implementations and API clients

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

Fact/ Memory Tip: Although there are many benefits of CloudHub Dedicated Load balancer, TWO important things that should come to ones mind for considering it are:

>> Having URL endpoints with Custom DNS names on CloudHub deployed apps

>> Configuring custom certificates for both HTTPS and Two-way (Mutual) authentication.

Coming to the options provided for this question:

>> We CANNOT use DLB to perform cross-region load balancing between separate deployments of the same Mule application.

>> We can have mapping rules to have more than one DLB URL pointing to same Mule app. But vicevera (More than one Mule app having same DLB URL) is NOT POSSIBLE

>> It is true that DLB helps to setup custom DNS names for Cloudhub deployed Mule apps but NOT true for apps deployed to Customer-hosted Mule Runtimes.

>> It is true to that we can load balance API invocations across multiple CloudHub workers using DLB but it is NOT A MUST. We can achieve the same (load balancing) using SLB (Shared Load Balancer) too. We DO NOT necessarily require DLB for achieve it.

So the only right option that fits the scenario and requires us to use DLB is when TLS mutual authentication is required between API implementations and API clients.

Explanation

Correct Answer: Implement required changes to the Process API implementation so that, whenever possible, the Process API’s RAML definition remains unchanged.

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

Key requirement in the question is:

>> Approach that minimizes the impact of this change on API clients

Based on above:

>> Updating the RAML definition would possibly impact the API clients if the changes require any thing mandatory from client side. So, one should try to avoid doing that until really necessary.

>> Implementing the changes as a completely different API and then redirectly the clients with 3xx status code is really upsetting design and heavily impacts the API clients.

>> Organisations and IT cannot simply postpone the changes required until all API consumers acknowledge they are ready to migrate to a new Process API or API version. This is unrealistic and not possible.

The best way to handle the changes always is to implement required changes to the API implementations so that, whenever possible, the API’s RAML definition remains unchanged.

Understanding Coarse-Grained vs. Fine-Grained API Design:

A coarse-grained design consolidates multiple operations within a single API, leading to fewer APIs but with more complex implementations. Conversely, a fine-grained design breaks down functionalities into smaller, more specific APIs, resulting in simpler implementations but a larger number of APIs.

Evaluating the Options:

Option A (Correct Answer): With a coarse-grained design, each API handles more functionalities, increasing the complexity of each API implementation as it needs to manage more use cases and logic.

Option B: A coarse-grained design typically reduces the number of APIs, so fewer discoverable assets are available.

Option C: Fewer APIs generally mean fewer connections between them in the application network.

Option D: Network infrastructure usage may actually decrease with fewer APIs, as there are fewer calls between APIs.

Conclusion:

Option A is the correct answer, as the complexity of each API implementation increases in a coarse-grained design due to the consolidation of multiple functionalities into single APIs.

Refer to MuleSoft’s documentation on API design principles and best practices for coarse-grained vs. fine-grained API implementation.