Get Salesforce Certified MuleSoft Platform Architect (Mule-Arch-201) Exam Practice Questions - Real and Updated

Answer : C

In MuleSoft CloudHub, autoscaling is essential to managing application load efficiently. CloudHub supports horizontal scaling based on CPU usage, which is well-suited to applications experiencing variable demand and needing responsive resource allocation.

Autoscaling on CloudHub:

Horizontal scaling increases the number of workers in response to CPU usage thresholds, allowing the application to handle higher loads dynamically. This approach improves performance without downtime or manual intervention.

Why Option C is Correct:

Setting up autoscaling based on CPU usage aligns with MuleSoft's best practices for scalable and responsive applications on CloudHub, particularly in an environment with fluctuating load patterns.

Option C correctly leverages CloudHub's autoscaling features based on resource metrics, which are part of CloudHub's managed scaling solutions.

of Incorrect Options:

Option A (based on HTTP request thresholds) and Option B (separate policies for CPU and memory) do not represent CloudHub's recommended scaling practices.

Option D suggests vertical scaling based on response time, which is not how CloudHub handles autoscaling.

Reference For more on CloudHub's autoscaling configuration, refer to MuleSoft documentation on CloudHub autoscaling policies.

Answer : D

Correct Answe r: JSON threat protection

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

Fact: Technically, there are no restrictions on what policy can be applied in what layer. Any policy can be applied on any layer API. However, context should also be considered properly before blindly applying the policies on APIs.

That is why, this question asked for a policy that would LEAST likely be applied to a Process API.

From the given options:

>> All policies except 'JSON threat protection' can be applied without hesitation to the APIs in Process tier.

>> JSON threat protection policy ideally fits for experience APIs to prevent suspicious JSON payload coming from external API clients. This covers more of a security aspect by trying to avoid possibly malicious and harmful JSON payloads from external clients calling experience APIs.

As external API clients are NEVER allowed to call Process APIs directly and also these kind of malicious and harmful JSON payloads are always stopped at experience API layer only using this policy, it is LEAST LIKELY that this same policy is again applied on Process Layer API.

Answer : C

Correct Answe r: Implement required changes to the Process API implementation so that, whenever possible, the Process API's RAML definition remains unchanged.

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

Key requirement in the question is:

>> Approach that minimizes the impact of this change on API clients

Based on above:

>> Updating the RAML definition would possibly impact the API clients if the changes require any thing mandatory from client side. So, one should try to avoid doing that until really necessary.

>> Implementing the changes as a completely different API and then redirectly the clients with 3xx status code is really upsetting design and heavily impacts the API clients.

>> Organisations and IT cannot simply postpone the changes required until all API consumers acknowledge they are ready to migrate to a new Process API or API version. This is unrealistic and not possible.

The best way to handle the changes always is to implement required changes to the API implementations so that, whenever possible, the API's RAML definition remains unchanged.

Answer : A

Correct Answe r: The visibility level of the API instances of that API that need to be publicly accessible should be set to public visibility.

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

https://docs.mulesoft.com/exchange/to-share-api-asset-to-portal

Answer : A

Correct Answe r: Apply a basic authentication - LDAP policy; the internal Active Directory will be configured as the LDAP source for authenticating users.

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

>> IP Whitelisting does NOT fit for this purpose. Moreover, the users workstations may not necessarily have static IPs in the network.

>> OAuth 2.0 enforcement requires a client provider which isn't in the organizations system components.

>> It is not an effective approach to let every user create separate client credentials and configure those for their usage.

The effective way it to apply a basic authentication - LDAP policy and the internal Active Directory will be configured as the LDAP source for authenticating users.