MCPA-Level-1 Exam Dumps : MuleSoft Certified Platform Architect - Level 1

Explanation

Correct Answer: The CloudHub shared load balancer

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

The scenario in this question can be split as below:

>> There are 3 CloudHub workers (So, there are already good number of workers to handle high volume of requests)

>> The workers are not using static IP addresses (So, one CANNOT use customer load-balancing solutions without static IPs)

>> Looking for most cost-effective component to load balance the client requests among the workers.

Based on the above details given in the scenario:

>> Runtime autoscaling is NOT at all cost-effective as it incurs extra cost. Most over, there are already 3 workers running which is a good number.

>> We cannot go for a customer-hosted load balancer as it is also NOT most cost-effective (needs custom load balancer to maintain and licensing) and same time the Mule App is not having Static IP Addresses which limits from going with custom load balancing.

>> An API Proxy is irrelevant there as it has no role to play w.r.t handling high volumes or load balancing.

So, the only right option to go with and fits the purpose of scenario being most cost-effective is - using a CloudHub Shared Load Balancer.

Explanation

Correct Answer: The client ID and secret obtained from Anypoint Exchange for the API instance in the STAGING environment

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

>> We CANNOT use the client ID and secret of Anypoint Platform account or any individual environments for accessing the APIs

>> As the type of policy that is enforced on the API in question is "Client ID Enforcment Policy", OAuth token based access won't work.

Right way to access the API is to use the client ID and secret obtained from Anypoint Exchange for the API instance in a particular environment we want to work on.

References:

Managing API instance Contracts on API Manager

nt-id-based-policies

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.