What are the major benefits of MuleSoft proposed IT Operating Model?
Correct Answer:
1. Decrease the IT delivery gap
2. Meet various business demands without increasing the IT capacity
3. Make consumption of assets at the rate of production.
*****************************************
What is a typical result of using a fine-grained rather than a coarse-grained API deployment model to implement a given business process?
Correct Answer: A higher number of discoverable API-related assets in the
*****************************************
>> 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.
When using CloudHub with the Shared Load Balancer, what is managed EXCLUSIVELY by the API implementation (the Mule application) and NOT by Anypoint Platform?
Correct Answer: The SSL certificates used by the API implementation to expose
*****************************************
>> The assignment of each HTTP request to a particular CloudHub worker is taken care by Anypoint Platform itself. We need not manage it explicitly in the API implementation and in fact we CANNOT manage it in the API implementation.
>> The logging configuration that enables log entries to be visible in Runtime Manager is ALWAYS managed in the API implementation and NOT just for SLB. So this is not something we do EXCLUSIVELY when using SLB.
>> We DO NOT manage the number of DNS entries allocated to the API implementation inside the code. Anypoint Platform takes care of this.
It is the SSL certificates used by the API implementation to expose HTTPS endpoints that is to be managed EXCLUSIVELY by the API implementation. Anypoint Platform does NOT do this when using SLBs.
An API implementation is being designed that must invoke an Order API, which is known to repeatedly experience downtime.
For this reason, a fallback API is to be called when the Order API is unavailable.
What approach to designing the invocation of the fallback API provides the best resilience?
Correct Answer: Search Anypoint exchange for a suitable existing fallback API, and
*****************************************
>> It is not ideal and good approach, until unless there is a pre-approved agreement with the API clients that they will receive a HTTP 3xx temporary redirect status code and they have to implement fallback logic their side to call another API.
>> Creating separate entry of same Order API in API manager would just create an another instance of it on top of same API implementation. So, it does NO GOOD by using clone od same API as a fallback API. Fallback API should be ideally a different API implementation that is not same as primary one.
>> There is NO option currently provided by Anypoint HTTP Connector that allows us to invoke a fallback API when we receive certain HTTP status codes in response.
The only statement TRUE in the given options is to Search Anypoint exchange for a suitable existing fallback API, and then implement invocations to this fallback API in addition to the order API.
An organization has created an API-led architecture that uses various API layers to integrate mobile clients with a backend system. The backend system consists of a number of specialized components and can be accessed via a REST API. The process and experience APIs share the same bounded-context model that is different from the backend data model. What additional canonical models, bounded-context models, or anti-corruption layers are best added to this architecture to help process data consumed from the backend system?
Correct Answer: Create a bounded-context model for the system layer to closely match the
*****************************************
>> 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.
