Cyber Monday 2024! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

UiPath Exam UiPath-ASAPv1 Topic 1 Question 18 Discussion

Actual exam question for UiPath's UiPath-ASAPv1 exam
Question #: 18
Topic #: 1
[All UiPath-ASAPv1 Questions]

Given the High-Level Diagram, what is the best improvement that the Solution Architect should make at the process level?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

Splitting the process into three distinct sub-processes - Dispatcher, Performer, and Reporter - aligns with best practices for RPA design, promoting modularity and scalability. The Dispatcher's role would be to initialize the process, such as identifying and queuing work items. The Performer would then take over to handle the core automation tasks (steps 2 to 4), focusing on processing the queued items. Finally, the Reporter would compile and present the results or outcomes of the automation (steps 5 to 7). This structure not only clarifies the process flow but also facilitates easier maintenance and updates, as each sub-process can be modified independently without affecting the others.


UiPath REFramework Guide: Dispatcher-Performer Model

UiPath Best Practices: Framework for Process Design

Contribute your Thoughts:

Ricarda
4 months ago
I've got a better idea - let's just have the Dispatcher, Performer, and Reporter all compete in a heated game of rock-paper-scissors to decide the process!
upvoted 0 times
...
Oneida
4 months ago
Hmm, I'm torn between B and D. Maybe the Solution Architect should just flip a coin?
upvoted 0 times
Julio
3 months ago
I agree, having separate sub-processes for Dispatcher, Performer, and Reporter makes sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
Brynn
4 months ago
I think splitting the process in three sub-processes would be more efficient.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Bettyann
4 months ago
Option D seems like a good compromise. Splitting it into Dispatcher and Performer keeps it simple but still improves the workflow.
upvoted 0 times
Francesco
4 months ago
Agreed, it keeps it simple but still improves the workflow.
upvoted 0 times
...
Markus
4 months ago
Yeah, splitting it into Dispatcher and Performer makes sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vesta
4 months ago
I think option D is the best choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Cherry
4 months ago
C is the right answer. There's no need to overcomplicate things. The current process is already efficient.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alline
4 months ago
I think option B is the best choice. Separating the process into Dispatcher, Performer, and Reporter makes the responsibilities more clear and helps with scalability.
upvoted 0 times
Loreen
3 months ago
Let's go with option B then. It seems like the most logical improvement.
upvoted 0 times
...
Fidelia
4 months ago
It definitely helps with scalability and efficiency.
upvoted 0 times
...
Erasmo
4 months ago
I agree, separating the process into sub-processes will make it easier to manage.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vanda
4 months ago
Option B is a good choice. It clearly defines the responsibilities.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Chantell
5 months ago
I think option C is valid too, no need for improvement.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rosendo
5 months ago
I feel like option B could also work well.
upvoted 0 times
...
Louann
5 months ago
I disagree, I believe option D is more efficient.
upvoted 0 times
...
Leanora
5 months ago
I think option A is the best improvement.
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