MCPA-Level-1-Maintenance Exam Dumps - MuleSoft Certified Platform Architect - Level 1 MAINTENANCE

Correct Answer: Persistent Object Store

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

>> Redis distributed cache is performant but NOT out-of-the-box solution in Anypoint Platform

>> File-storage is neither performant nor out-of-the-box solution in Anypoint Platform

>> java.util.WeakHashMap needs a completely custom implementation of cache from scratch using Java code and is limited to the JVM where it is running. Which means the state in the cache is not worker aware when running on multiple workers. This type of cache is local to the worker. So, this is neither out-of-the-box nor worker-aware among multiple workers on cloudhub. https://www.baeldung.com/java-weakhashmap

>> Persistent Object Store is an out-of-the-box solution provided by Anypoint Platform which is performant as well as worker aware among multiple workers running on CloudHub. https://docs.mulesoft.com/object-store/

So, Persistent Object Store is the right answer.

Explanation

Correct Answer: Unit tests (Whitebox)

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

Explanation

Correct Answer: API implementations can run successfully in customer-hosted Mule runtimes, even when they are unable to communicate with the control plane.

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

>> We CANNOT use Shared Load balancer to load balance APIs on customer hosted runtimes

>> For Hybrid deployment models, the on-premises are first connected to Runtime Manager using Runtime Manager agent. So, the connection is initiated first from On-premises to Runtime Manager. Then all control can be done from Runtime Manager.

>> Anypoint Runtime Manager CANNOT ensure automatic HA. Clusters/Server Groups etc should be configured before hand.

Only TRUE statement in the given choices is, API implementations can run successfully in customer-hosted Mule runtimes, even when they are unable to communicate with the control plane. There are several references below to justify this statement.

References:

https://docs.mulesoft.com/runtime-manager/deployment-strategies#hybrid-deployments

https://help.mulesoft.com/s/article/On-Premise-Runtimes-Disconnected-From-US-Control-Plane-June-18th-2018

https://help.mulesoft.com/s/article/Runtime-Manager-cannot-manage-On-Prem-Applications-and-Servers-from-US-Control-Plane-June-25th-2 019

https://help.mulesoft.com/s/article/On-premise-Runtimes-Appear-Disconnected-in-Runtime-Manager-May-29th-2018

============================

============================

Explanation

Correct Answer: When a pragmatic approach with only limited isolation from the backend system is deemed appropriate.

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

General guidance w.r.t choosing Data Models:

>> If an Enterprise Data Model is in use then the API data model of System APIs should make use of data types from that Enterprise Data Model and the corresponding API implementation should translate between these data types from the Enterprise Data Model and the native data model of the backend system.

>> If no Enterprise Data Model is in use then each System API should be assigned to a Bounded Context, the API data model of System APIs should make use of data types from the corresponding Bounded Context Data Model and the corresponding API implementation should translate between these data types from the Bounded Context Data Model and the native data model of the backend system. In this scenario, the data types in the Bounded Context Data Model are defined purely in terms of their business characteristics and are typically not related to the native data model of the backend system. In other words, the translation effort may be significant.

>> If no Enterprise Data Model is in use, and the definition of a clean Bounded Context Data Model is considered too much effort, then the API data model of System APIs should make use of data types that approximately mirror those from the backend system, same semantics and naming as backend system, lightly sanitized, expose all fields needed for the given System API’s functionality, but not significantly more and making good use of REST conventions.

The latter approach, i.e., exposing in System APIs an API data model that basically mirrors that of the backend system, does not provide satisfactory isolation from backend systems through the System API tier on its own. In particular, it will typically not be possible to "swap out" a backend system without significantly changing all System APIs in front of that backend system and therefore the API implementations of all Process APIs that depend on those System APIs! This is so because it is not desirable to prolong the life of a previous backend system’s data model in the form of the API data model of System APIs that now front a new backend system. The API data models of System APIs following this approach must therefore change when the backend system is replaced.

On the other hand:

>> It is a very pragmatic approach that adds comparatively little overhead over accessing the backend system directly

>> Isolates API clients from intricacies of the backend system outside the data model (protocol, authentication, connection pooling, network address, …)

>> Allows the usual API policies to be applied to System APIs

>> Makes the API data model for interacting with the backend system explicit and visible, by exposing it in the RAML definitions of the System APIs

>> Further isolation from the backend system data model does occur in the API implementations of the Process API tier