At ValidExamDumps, we consistently monitor updates to the Arcitura Education S90.08B exam questions by Arcitura Education. Whenever our team identifies changes in the exam questions,exam objectives, exam focus areas or in exam requirements, We immediately update our exam questions for both PDF and online practice exams. This commitment ensures our customers always have access to the most current and accurate questions. By preparing with these actual questions, our customers can successfully pass the Arcitura Education SOA Design & Architecture Lab with Services & Microservices exam on their first attempt without needing additional materials or study guides.
Other certification materials providers often include outdated or removed questions by Arcitura Education in their Arcitura Education S90.08B exam. These outdated questions lead to customers failing their Arcitura Education SOA Design & Architecture Lab with Services & Microservices exam. In contrast, we ensure our questions bank includes only precise and up-to-date questions, guaranteeing their presence in your actual exam. Our main priority is your success in the Arcitura Education S90.08B exam, not profiting from selling obsolete exam questions in PDF or Online Practice Test.
Refer to Exhibit.
Service A is a task service that sends Service B a message (2) requesting that Service B return data back to Service A in a response message (3). Depending on the response received, Service A may be required to send a message to Service C (4) for which it requires no response.
Before it contacts Service B, Service A must first retrieve a list of code values from its own database (1) and then place this data into its own memory. If it turns out that it must send a message to Service C, then Service A must combine the data it receives from Service B with the data from the code value list in order to create the message it sends to Service C. If Service A is not required to invoke Service C, it can complete its task by discarding the code values.
Service A and Service C reside in Service Inventory
The problem is that Service A and Service B are using different technologies and cannot communicate. Therefore, an intermediate processing layer can be established that can transform messages from one data format to another at runtime. This can be achieved using the Data Format Transformation pattern.
Additionally, Service C frequently reaches its usage thresholds and is not always available, so an Asynchronous Queuing pattern can be applied to establish an intermediate queue between Service A and Service C. This queue will store the messages sent by Service A to Service C and retransmit them until they are successfully delivered. This approach improves the reliability of the system.
Moreover, the Redundant Implementation pattern can be applied to Service C to ensure its availability and scalability, and the Service Autonomy principle can be applied to make Service C independent of other services.
Refer to Exhibit.
Service A is a task service that is required to carry out a series of updates to a set of databases in order to complete a task. To perform the database updates. Service A must interact with three other services that each provides standardized data access capabilities.
Service A sends its first update request message to Service B (1), which then responds with a message containing either a success or failure code (2). Service A then sends its second update request message to Service C (3), which also responds with a message containing either a success or failure code (4). Finally, Service A sends a request message to Service D (5), which responds with its own message containing either a success or failure code (6).
Services B, C and D are agnostic services that are reused and shared by multiple service consumers. This has caused unacceptable performance degradation for the service consumers of Service A as it is taking too long to complete its overall task. You've been asked to enhance the service composition architecture so that Service A provides consistent and predictable runtime performance. You are furthermore notified that a new type of data will be introduced to all three databases. It is important that this data is exchanged in a standardized manner so that the data model used for the data in inter-service messages is the same.
What steps can be taken to fulfill these requirements?
This approach isolates the services used by Service A, allowing it to avoid the performance degradation caused by multiple service consumers. By creating redundant implementations of Services B, C, and D that are accessed only by Service A, the Composition Autonomy pattern also ensures that Service A's runtime performance is consistent and predictable. Applying the Canonical Schema pattern ensures that the new type of data is exchanged in a standardized manner, ensuring consistent representation of the data model used for the data in inter-service messages.
Refer to Exhibit.
Services A, B, and C are non-agnostic task services. Service A and Service B use the same shared state database to defer their state data at runtime.
An assessment of the three services reveals that each contains some agnostic logic that cannot be made available for reuse because it is bundled together with non-agnostic logic.
The assessment also determines that because Service A, Service B and the shared state database are each located in physically separate environments, the remote communication required for Service A and Service B to interact with the shared state database is causing an unreasonable decrease in runtime performance.
How can the application of the Orchestration pattern improve this architecture?
The application of the Orchestration pattern can improve this architecture by cleanly separating the non-agnostic logic from the agnostic logic, allowing the design of new agnostic services with reuse potential. The State Repository pattern, which is supported by and local to the orchestration environment, provides a central state database that can be shared by Services A and B. The local state database avoids problems with remote communication. Additionally, the Orchestration pattern provides a central controller that can coordinate the interactions between Services A, B, and C, reducing the need for remote communication between services and improving runtime performance.
Refer to Exhibit.
Service Consumer A and Service A reside in Service Inventory
The Asynchronous Queuing pattern is applied to position a messaging queue between Service A, Service B, Service C, Service D, and Service Consumer A. This ensures that messages can be passed between these services without having to be in a stateful mode.
The Data Model Transformation and Protocol Bridging patterns are applied to enable communication between Service A and Service B, Service A and Service C, and Service A and Service D, despite their different data models and transport protocols.
The Redundant Implementation pattern is applied to bring a copy of Service D in-house to ensure that it can be accessed locally and reduce the unpredictability of its performance.
The Legacy Wrapper pattern is applied to wrap Service D with a standardized service contract that complies with the design standards used in Service Inventory B. This is useful for service consumers who want to use Service D but do not want to change their existing applications or service contracts.
Overall, this approach provides a comprehensive solution that addresses the issues with Service A, Service B, Service C, and Service D, while maintaining compliance with the Service Abstraction principle.
Refer to Exhibit.
The architecture for Service A displayed in the figure shows how the core logic of Service A has expanded over time to connect to a database and a proprietary legacy system (1), and to support two separate service contracts (2) that are accessed by different service consumers.
The service contracts are fully decoupled from the service logic. The service logic is therefore coupled to the service contracts and to the underlying implementation resources (the database and the legacy system).
Service A currently has three service consumers. Service Consumer A and Service Consumer B access Service A's two service contracts (3, 4). Service Consumer C bypasses the service contracts and accesses the service logic directly (5).
You are told that the database and legacy system that are currently being used by Service A are being replaced with different products. The two service contracts are completely decoupled from the core service logic, but there is still a concern that the introduction of the new products will cause the core service logic to behave differently than before.
What steps can be taken to change the Service A architecture in preparation for the introduction of the new products so that the impact on Service Consumers A and B is minimized? What further step can be taken to avoid consumer-to-implementation coupling with Service Consumer C?
The Service Fagade pattern can be applied to position fagade components between the core service logic and the implementation resources (the database and the legacy system). These fagade components will be designed to insulate the core service logic of Service A from the changes in the underlying implementation resources. This will minimize the impact of the introduction of the new products on Service Consumers A and B since the service contracts are fully decoupled from the core service logic. The Schema Centralization and Endpoint Redirection patterns can also be applied to force Service Consumer C to access Service A via one of its existing service contracts, avoiding direct access to the core service logic and the underlying implementation resources.
