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

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.

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: Apply a basic authentication - LDAP policy; the internal Active Directory will be configured as the LDAP source for authenticating users.

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

>> IP Whitelisting does NOT fit for this purpose. Moreover, the users workstations may not necessarily have static IPs in the network.

>> OAuth 2.0 enforcement requires a client provider which isn't in the organizations system components.

>> It is not an effective approach to let every user create separate client credentials and configure those for their usage.

The effective way it to apply a basic authentication - LDAP policy and the internal Active Directory will be configured as the LDAP source for authenticating users.