Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Salesforce Exam Integration-Architect Topic 4 Question 32 Discussion

Actual exam question for Salesforce's Salesforce Certified Integration Architect exam
Question #: 32
Topic #: 4
[All Salesforce Certified Integration Architect Questions]

Universal Containers (UC) currently owns a middleware tool and they have developed an API-led integration architecture with three API tiers. The first tier interfaces directly with the systems of engagement, the second tier implements business logic and aggregates data, while the third tier interfaces directly with systems of record. Some of the systems of engagement will be a mobile application, a web application, and Salesforce.

UC has a business requirement to return data to the systems of engagement in different formats while also enforcing different security protocols.

What should an Integration Architect recommend to meet these requirements?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

Contribute your Thoughts:

Una
2 months ago
I like option D, leveraging an Identity Provider solution could simplify the communication process.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rozella
3 months ago
Option D with the Identity Provider is an interesting approach, but I don't think it quite fits the requirements here. C seems like the most straightforward and appropriate recommendation.
upvoted 0 times
Chi
2 months ago
User 2: I agree, it seems like the most straightforward solution for meeting the requirements.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lorita
2 months ago
User 1: I think C is the best option for enforcing different security protocols and return formats at the second tier.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Eun
3 months ago
I disagree, option B with an API gateway would be more efficient to manage all systems of engagement.
upvoted 0 times
...
Camellia
3 months ago
I think we should go with option A to enforce separate security protocols and return formats at the first tier.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rosamond
3 months ago
I believe leveraging an Identity Provider solution that communicates with the API tiers via SAML would be more secure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Loren
3 months ago
But wouldn't it be better to implement an API gateway that all systems of engagement must interface with first?
upvoted 0 times
...
Merrilee
3 months ago
Ha! Typical software architect question. They always want you to overcomplicate things. I'm going with the simplest option - A. Keep it all at the first tier, easy peasy.
upvoted 0 times
...
Veda
4 months ago
Hmm, I'm not so sure. Doesn't option B with the API gateway seem like the more robust solution? That way you can centralize all the security and formatting logic.
upvoted 0 times
Hubert
3 months ago
User 2: That makes sense. It would simplify things for sure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ettie
3 months ago
User 1: I think option B with the API gateway is a good idea. It can centralize security and formatting logic.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Chaya
4 months ago
I agree with Mirta. C is the best choice here. Keeping the security and formatting logic at the middle tier is a good architectural decision.
upvoted 0 times
Annelle
3 months ago
I disagree, A seems like the best option. Enforcing security protocols and return formats at the first tier is more efficient.
upvoted 0 times
...
Joni
3 months ago
I think B is the way to go. Having all systems interface with an API gateway first makes sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Eloisa
4 months ago
I agree, it would be more efficient to handle security and format requirements at the initial tier.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mirta
4 months ago
Option C makes the most sense. Enforcing the security protocols and return formats at the second tier allows for a clean separation of concerns.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jesus
4 months ago
I think we should enforce separate security protocols and return formats at the first tier of the API-led architecture.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77