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

Explanation

Correct Answer: Apply a basic authentication - LDAP policy; the internal Active Directory will be configured as the LDAP source for authenticating users.

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

>> IP Whitelisting does NOT fit for this purpose. Moreover, the users workstations may not necessarily have static IPs in the network.

>> OAuth 2.0 enforcement requires a client provider which isn't in the organizations system components.

>> It is not an effective approach to let every user create separate client credentials and configure those for their usage.

The effective way it to apply a basic authentication - LDAP policy and the internal Active Directory will be configured as the LDAP source for authenticating users.

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: 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.