MuleSoft-Platform-Architect-I Exam Dumps : Salesforce Certified MuleSoft Platform Architect (Mule-Arch-201)

Explanation

Correct Answer: Set a timeout of 100ms; that leaves 400ms for other two downstream APIs to complete

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

Key details to take from the given scenario:

>> Upstream API's designed SLA is 500ms (median). Lets ignore maximum SLA response times.

>> This API calls 3 downstream APIs sequentially and all these are of similar complexity.

>> The first downstream API is offering median SLA of 100ms, 80th percentile: 500ms; 95th percentile: 1000ms.

Based on the above details:

>> We can rule out the option which is suggesting to set 50ms timeout. Because, if the median SLA itself being offered is 100ms then most of the calls are going to timeout and time gets wasted in retried them and eventually gets exhausted with all retries. Even if some retries gets successful, the remaining time wont leave enough room for 2nd and 3rd downstream APIs to respond within time.

>> The option suggesting to NOT set a timeout as the invocation of this API is mandatory and so we must wait until it responds is silly. As not setting time out would go against the good implementation pattern and moreover if the first API is not responding within its offered median SLA 100ms then most probably it would either respond in 500ms (80th percentile) or 1000ms (95th percentile). In BOTH cases, getting a successful response from 1st downstream API does NO GOOD because already by this time the Upstream API SLA of 500 ms is breached. There is no time left to call 2nd and 3rd downstream APIs.

>> It is NOT true that no timeout is possible to meet the upstream APIs desired SLA.

As 1st downstream API is offering its median SLA of 100ms, it means MOST of the time we would get the responses within that time. So, setting a timeout of 100ms would be ideal for MOST calls as it leaves enough room of 400ms for remaining 2 downstream API calls.

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.

Explanation

Correct Answer: IP whitelist

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

>> OAuth 2.0 access token and Client ID enforcement policies are VERY common to apply on Experience APIs as API consumers need to register and access the APIs using one of these mechanisms

>> JSON threat protection is also VERY common policy to apply on Experience APIs to prevent bad or suspicious payloads hitting the API implementations.

>> IP whitelisting policy is usually very common in Process and System APIs to only whitelist the IP range inside the local VPC. But also applied occassionally on some experience APIs where the End User/ API Consumers are FIXED.

>> When we know the API consumers upfront who are going to access certain Experience APIs, then we can request for static IPs from such consumers and whitelist them to prevent anyone else hitting the API.

However, the experience API given in the question/ scenario is intended to work with a consumer mobile phone or tablet application. Which means, there is no way we can know all possible IPs that are to be whitelisted as mobile phones and tablets can so many in number and any device in the city/state/country/globe.

So, It is very LEAST LIKELY to apply IP Whitelisting on such Experience APIs whose consumers are typically Mobile Phones or Tablets.