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

Explanation

Correct Answer: Anypoint Runtime Fabric

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

>> When a customer is already having an Azure environment, It is not at all an ideal approach to go with hybrid model having some Mule Runtimes hosted on Azure and some on MuleSoft. This is unnecessary and useless.

>> CloudHub is a Mulesoft-hosted Runtime plane and is on AWS. We cannot customize to point CloudHub to customer's Azure environment.

>> Anypoint Platform for Pivotal Cloud Foundry is specifically for infrastructure provided by Pivotal Cloud Foundry

>> Anypoint Runtime Fabric is right answer as it is a container service that automates the deployment and orchestration of Mule applications and API gateways. Runtime Fabric runs within a customer-managed infrastructure on AWS, Azure, virtual machines (VMs), and bare-metal servers.

-Some of the capabilities of Anypoint Runtime Fabric include:

-Isolation between applications by running a separate Mule runtime per application.

-Ability to run multiple versions of Mule runtime on the same set of resources.

-Scaling applications across multiple replicas.

-Automated application fail-over.

-Application management with Anypoint Runtime Manager.

Explanation

Correct Answer: A higher number of discoverable API-related assets in the application network.

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

>> We do NOT get faster response times in fine-grained approach when compared to coarse-grained approach.

>> In fact, we get faster response times from a network having coarse-grained APIs compared to a network having fine-grained APIs model. The reasons are below.

Fine-grained approach:

1. will have more APIs compared to coarse-grained

2. So, more orchestration needs to be done to achieve a functionality in business process.

3. Which means, lots of API calls to be made. So, more connections will needs to be established. So, obviously more hops, more network i/o, more number of integration points compared to coarse-grained approach where fewer APIs with bulk functionality embedded in them.

4. That is why, because of all these extra hops and added latencies, fine-grained approach will have bit more response times compared to coarse-grained.

5. Not only added latencies and connections, there will be more resources used up in fine-grained approach due to more number of APIs.

That's why, fine-grained APIs are good in a way to expose more number of resuable assets in your network and make them discoverable. However, needs more maintenance, taking care of integration points, connections, resources with a little compromise w.r.t network hops and response times.

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.