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

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: 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: Create a bounded-context model for the system layer to closely match the backend data model, and add an anti-corruption layer to let the different bounded contexts cooperate across the system and process layers

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

>> Canonical models are not an option here as the organization has already put in efforts and created bounded-context models for Experience and Process APIs.

>> Anti-corruption layers for ALL APIs is unnecessary and invalid because it is mentioned that experience and process APIs share same bounded-context model. It is just the System layer APIs that need to choose their approach now.

>> So, having an anti-corruption layer just between the process and system layers will work well. Also to speed up the approach, system APIs can mimic the backend system data model.