Foren » Discussions » MCPA-Level-1-Maintenanceブロンズ教材、MCPA-Level-1-Maintenance試験解説
コンテンツだけでなくディスプレイでも、MCPA-Level-1-Maintenanceテスト準備の設計に最新のテクノロジーを適用しました。結果として、あなたは変化する世界に歩調を合わせ、MCPA-Level-1-Maintenanceトレーニング資料であなたの利点を維持することができます。また、重要な知識を個人的に統合し、カスタマイズされた学習スケジュールやTo Doリストを毎日設計できます。最後になりましたが、アフターサービスは、MCPA-Level-1-Maintenanceガイド急流で最も魅力的なプロジェクトになる可能性があります。
MuleSoft MCPA-Level-1-Maintenance 認定試験の出題範囲：
| トピック | 出題範囲 |
|---|---|
| トピック 1 |
|
| トピック 2 |
|
| トピック 3 |
|
| トピック 4 |
|
| トピック 5 |
|
| トピック 6 |
|
| トピック 7 |
|
>> MCPA-Level-1-Maintenanceブロンズ教材 <<
MCPA-Level-1-Maintenance試験問題集、MCPA-Level-1-Maintenance練習問題、MCPA-Level-1-Maintenance試験ガイド
弊社のMuleSoft MCPA-Level-1-Maintenance問題集を使用した後、MCPA-Level-1-Maintenance試験に合格するのはあまりに難しくないことだと知られます。我々GoShiken提供するMCPA-Level-1-Maintenance問題集を通して、試験に迅速的にパースする技をファンドできます。あなたのご遠慮なく購買するために、弊社は提供する無料のMuleSoft MCPA-Level-1-Maintenance問題集デーモをダウンロードします。
MuleSoft Certified Platform Architect - Level 1 MAINTENANCE 認定 MCPA-Level-1-Maintenance 試験問題 (Q24-Q29):
質問 # 24
A system API is deployed to a primary environment as well as to a disaster recovery (DR) environment, with different DNS names in each environment. A process API is a client to the system API and is being rate limited by the system API, with different limits in each of the environments. The system API's DR environment provides only 20% of the rate limiting offered by the primary environment. What is the best API fault-tolerant invocation strategy to reduce overall errors in the process API, given these conditions and constraints?
- A. Invoke the system API deployed to the primary environment; add timeout and retry logic to the process API to avoid intermittent failures; if it still fails, invoke a copy of the process API deployed to the DR environment
- B. Invoke the system API deployed to the primary environment; add retry logic to the process API to handle intermittent failures by invoking the system API deployed to the DR environment
- C. In parallel, invoke the system API deployed to the primary environment and the system API deployed to the DR environment; add timeout and retry logic to the process API to avoid intermittent failures; add logic to the process API to combine the results
- D. Invoke the system API deployed to the primary environment; add timeout and retry logic to the process API to avoid intermittent failures; if it still fails, invoke the system API deployed to the DR environment
正解：D
解説：
Invoke the system API deployed to the primary environment; add timeout and retry logic to the process API to avoid intermittent failures; if it still fails, invoke the system API deployed to the DR environment
****************************************
There is one important consideration to be noted in the question which is - System API in DR environment provides only 20% of the rate limiting offered by the primary environment. So, comparitively, very less calls will be allowed into the DR environment API opposed to its primary environment. With this in mind, lets analyse what is the right and best fault-tolerant invocation strategy.
1. Invoking both the system APIs in parallel is definitely NOT a feasible approach because of the 20% limitation we have on DR environment. Calling in parallel every time would easily and quickly exhaust the rate limits on DR environment and may not give chance to genuine intermittent error scenarios to let in during the time of need.
2. Another option given is suggesting to add timeout and retry logic to process API while invoking primary environment's system API. This is good so far. However, when all retries failed, the option is suggesting to invoke the copy of process API on DR environment which is not right or recommended. Only system API is the one to be considered for fallback and not the whole process API. Process APIs usually have lot of heavy orchestration calling many other APIs which we do not want to repeat again by calling DR's process API. So this option is NOT right.
3. One more option given is suggesting to add the retry (no timeout) logic to process API to directly retry on DR environment's system API instead of retrying the primary environment system API first. This is not at all a proper fallback. A proper fallback should occur only after all retries are performed and exhausted on Primary environment first. But here, the option is suggesting to directly retry fallback API on first failure itself without trying main API. So, this option is NOT right too.
This leaves us one option which is right and best fit.
- Invoke the system API deployed to the primary environment
- Add Timeout and Retry logic on it in process API
- If it fails even after all retries, then invoke the system API deployed to the DR environment.
質問 # 25*
What is the most performant out-of-the-box solution in Anypoint Platform to track transaction state in an asynchronously executing long-running process implemented as a Mule application deployed to multiple CloudHub workers?
- A. Persistent Object Store
- B. Redis distributed cache
- C. java.util.WeakHashMap
- D. File-based storage
正解：A
解説：
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.
質問 # 26*
What is a key requirement when using an external Identity Provider for Client Management in Anypoint Platform?
- A. The application network must include System APIs that interact with the Identity Provider
- B. APIs managed by Anypoint Platform must be protected by SAML 2.0 policies
- C. To invoke OAuth 2.0-protected APIs managed by Anypoint Platform, API clients must submit access tokens issued by that same Identity Provider
- D. Single sign-on is required to sign in to Anypoint Platform
正解：C
解説：
Explanation
https://www.folkstalk.com/2019/11/mulesoft-integration-and-platform.html Explanation
To invoke OAuth 2.0-protected APIs managed by Anypoint Platform, API clients must
submit access tokens issued by that same Identity Provider
****************************************
>> It is NOT necessary that single sign-on is required to sign in to Anypoint Platform because we are using an external Identity Provider for Client Management
>> It is NOT necessary that all APIs managed by Anypoint Platform must be protected by SAML 2.0 policies because we are using an external Identity Provider for Client Management
>> Not TRUE that the application network must include System APIs that interact with the Identity Provider because we are using an external Identity Provider for Client Management Only TRUE statement in the given options is - "To invoke OAuth 2.0-protected APIs managed by Anypoint Platform, API clients must submit access tokens issued by that same Identity Provider" References:
https://docs.mulesoft.com/api-manager/2.x/external-oauth-2.0-token-validation-policy
https://blogs.mulesoft.com/dev/api-dev/api-security-ways-to-authenticate-and-authorize/
質問 # 27*
A company has started to create an application network and is now planning to implement a Center for Enablement (C4E) organizational model. What key factor would lead the company to decide upon a federated rather than a centralized C4E?
- A. When development is already organized into several independent initiatives or groups
- B. When various teams responsible for creating APIs are new to integration and hence need extensive training
- C. When there are a large number of existing common assets shared by development teams
- D. When the majority of the applications in the application network are cloud based
正解：A
解説：
When development is already organized into several independent initiatives or groups
****************************************
>> It would require lot of process effort in an organization to have a single C4E team coordinating with multiple already organized development teams which are into several independent initiatives. A single C4E works well with different teams having at least a common initiative. So, in this scenario, federated C4E works well instead of centralized C4E.
質問 # 28*
A new upstream API Is being designed to offer an SLA of 500 ms median and 800 ms maximum (99th percentile) response time. The corresponding API implementation needs to sequentially invoke 3 downstream APIs of very similar complexity.
The first of these downstream APIs offers the following SLA for its response time: median: 100 ms, 80th percentile: 500 ms, 95th percentile: 1000 ms.
If possible, how can a timeout be set in the upstream API for the invocation of the first downstream API to meet the new upstream API's desired SLA?
- A. No timeout is possible to meet the upstream API's desired SLA; a different SLA must be negotiated with the first downstream API or invoke an alternative API
- B. Set a timeout of 100 ms; that leaves 400 ms for the other two downstream APIs to complete
- C. Set a timeout of 50 ms; this times out more invocations of that API but gives additional room for retries
- D. Do not set a timeout; the Invocation of this API Is mandatory and so we must wait until it responds
正解：B
解説：
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.
質問 # 29
......
一部のお客様は時間を無駄にしないホワイトカラーの従業員であり、プロモーションを得るために早急にMuleSoft認定を必要としますが、他のお客様はスキルの向上を目指している場合があります。そのため、MCPA-Level-1-Maintenanceの質問と回答の異なるバージョンを設定することにより、異なる要件を満たすようにします。特別なものは、オンラインのMCPA-Level-1-Maintenanceエンジンバージョンです。オンラインツールとして、便利で簡単に学習でき、Windows、Mac、Android、iOSなどを含むすべてのWebブラウザとシステムをサポートします。このバージョンのMCPA-Level-1-Maintenance試験問題をすべての電子デバイスに適用できます。
*MCPA-Level-1-Maintenance試験解説**: https://www.goshiken.com/MuleSoft/MCPA-Level-1-Maintenance-mondaishu.html