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

Explanation

Correct Answer: Manually provisioned customer-hosted runtime plane and customer-hosted control plane

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

There are two key factors that are to be taken into consideration from the scenario given in the question.

>> Company requires both data and metadata to be resided within the corporate firewall

>> Company would like to go with customer-hosted infrastructure.

Any deployment model that is to deal with the cloud directly or indirectly (Mulesoft-hosted or Customer's own cloud like Azure, AWS) will have to share atleast the metadata.

Application data can be controlled inside firewall by having Mule Runtimes on customer hosted runtime plane. But if we go with Mulsoft-hosted/ Cloud-based control plane, the control plane required atleast some minimum level of metadata to be sent outside the corporate firewall.

As the customer requirement is pretty clear about the data and metadata both to be within the corporate firewall, even though customer wants to move to production as quickly as possible, unfortunately due to the nature of their security requirements, they have no other option but to go with manually provisioned customer-hosted runtime plane and customer-hosted control plane.

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.

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.