Salesforce MuleSoft-Platform-Architect-I Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

CloudHub Object Store v2 is a managed key-value store provided by MuleSoft to support various use cases where temporary data storage is required. Here’s why Option D is correct:

Key Length Support: Object Store v2 allows storage of keys with a length of up to 300 characters, making it suitable for applications needing flexible and descriptive keys.

Limitations on Size:

Object Store v2 is not intended for large payload storage and has a recommended size limit below 10 MB for each value. Payloads exceeding 15 MB may cause performance issues and are better suited to a file storage system or database.

Option B is incorrect because storing payloads above 15 MB exceeds Object Store’s optimal usage specifications.

Key-Value Limits: Object Store v2 is designed for moderate, transient storage needs, and does not support unlimited storage. Thus, Option A is incorrect.

Backward Compatibility: Object Store v2 does not support Mule 4 applications running Object Store v1. Option C is incorrect as Object Store v1 and v2 are distinct.

ReferencesFor more on CloudHub Object Store v2, refer to MuleSoft documentation on Object Store limitations and configuration​.

Explanation

Correct Answer: Data on past API invocations to help identify anomalies and usage patterns across various APIs

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

API Invocation metrics provided by Anypoint Platform:

>> Does NOT provide any Return Of Investment (ROI) related information. So the option suggesting it is OUT.

>> Does NOT provide any information w.r.t how APIs are reused, whether there is effective usage of APIs or not etc...

>> Does NOT prodive any prediction information as such to help us proactively identify any future policy violations.

So, the kind of data/information we can get from such metrics is on past API invocations to help identify anomalies and usage patterns across various APIs.

Explanation

Correct Answer: When a pragmatic approach with only limited isolation from the backend system is deemed appropriate.

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

General guidance w.r.t choosing Data Models:

>> If an Enterprise Data Model is in use then the API data model of System APIs should make use of data types from that Enterprise Data Model and the corresponding API implementation should translate between these data types from the Enterprise Data Model and the native data model of the backend system.

>> If no Enterprise Data Model is in use then each System API should be assigned to a Bounded Context, the API data model of System APIs should make use of data types from the corresponding Bounded Context Data Model and the corresponding API implementation should translate between these data types from the Bounded Context Data Model and the native data model of the backend system. In this scenario, the data types in the Bounded Context Data Model are defined purely in terms of their business characteristics and are typically not related to the native data model of the backend system. In other words, the translation effort may be significant.

>> If no Enterprise Data Model is in use, and the definition of a clean Bounded Context Data Model is considered too much effort, then the API data model of System APIs should make use of data types that approximately mirror those from the backend system, same semantics and naming as backend system, lightly sanitized, expose all fields needed for the given System API’s functionality, but not significantly more and making good use of REST conventions.

The latter approach, i.e., exposing in System APIs an API data model that basically mirrors that of the backend system, does not provide satisfactory isolation from backend systems through the System API tier on its own. In particular, it will typically not be possible to "swap out" a backend system without significantly changing all System APIs in front of that backend system and therefore the API implementations of all Process APIs that depend on those System APIs! This is so because it is not desirable to prolong the life of a previous backend system’s data model in the form of the API data model of System APIs that now front a new backend system. The API data models of System APIs following this approach must therefore change when the backend system is replaced.

On the other hand:

>> It is a very pragmatic approach that adds comparatively little overhead over accessing the backend system directly

>> Isolates API clients from intricacies of the backend system outside the data model (protocol, authentication, connection pooling, network address, …)

>> Allows the usual API policies to be applied to System APIs

>> Makes the API data model for interacting with the backend system explicit and visible, by exposing it in the RAML definitions of the System APIs

>> Further isolation from the backend system data model does occur in the API implementations of the Process API tier