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: 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: 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.