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 invocation of the fallback API provides the best resilience?

A stock broking company makes use of CloudHub VPC to deploy Mule applications. Mule application needs to connect to a database application in the customers on-premises corporate data center and also to a Kafka cluster running in AWS VPC.
How is access enabled for the API to connect to the database application and Kafka cluster securely?
Refer to the exhibit.
A Mule application is deployed to a multi-node Mule runtime cluster. The Mule application uses the competing consumer pattern among its cluster replicas to receive JMS messages from a JMS queue. To process each received JMS message, the following steps are performed in a flow:
Step l: The JMS Correlation ID header is read from the received JMS message.
Step 2: The Mule application invokes an idempotent SOAP webservice over HTTPS, passing the JMS Correlation ID as one parameter in the SOAP request.
Step 3: The response from the SOAP webservice also returns the same JMS Correlation ID.
Step 4: The JMS Correlation ID received from the SOAP webservice is validated to be identical to the JMS Correlation ID received in Step 1.
Step 5: The Mule application creates a response JMS message, setting the JMS Correlation ID message header to the validated JMS Correlation ID and publishes that message to a response JMS queue.
Where should the Mule application store the JMS Correlation ID values received in Step 1 and Step 3 so that the validation in Step 4 can be performed, while also making the overall Mule application highly available, fault-tolerant, performant, and maintainable?


Refer to the exhibit.

A business process involves two APIs that interact with each other asynchronously over HTTP. Each API is implemented as a Mule application. API 1 receives the initial HTTP request and invokes API 2 (in a fire and forget fashion) while API 2, upon completion of the processing, calls back into API l to notify about completion of the asynchronous process.
Each API Is deployed to multiple redundant Mule runtimes and a separate load balancer, and is deployed to a separate network zone.
In the network architecture, how must the firewall rules be configured to enable the above Interaction between API 1 and API 2?
An integration Mute application is being designed to process orders by submitting them to a backend system for offline processing. Each order will be received by the Mute application through an HTTPS POST and must be acknowledged immediately. Once acknowledged, the order will be submitted to a backend system. Orders that cannot be successfully submitted due to rejections from the backend system will need to be processed manually (outside the backend system).
The Mule application will be deployed to a customer-hosted runtime and is able to use an existing ActiveMQ broker if needed.
The backend system has a track record of unreliability both due to minor network connectivity issues and longer outages.
What idiomatic (used for their intended purposes) combination of Mule application components and ActiveMQ queues are required to ensure automatic submission of orders to the backend system, while minimizing manual order processing?
Enter your email address to download MuleSoft.MCIA-Level-1.v2023-04-22.q108 Dumps