Haha, I wonder if the exam question is trying to trip us up with all these options. Looks like I'll have to really think through the pros and cons of each approach.
Using an API proxy with a shared configuration sounds like a great way to manage the connector details. This would give me a lot of flexibility in terms of updating the configuration without impacting the APIs.
Creating a central System API to access the database is an interesting approach, but it adds an extra layer of complexity. I'm not sure if this is the best solution for my use case.
Creating a central System API to access the database is an interesting approach, but it adds an extra layer of complexity. I'm not sure if this is the best solution for my use case.
B) Build a separate Mule domain project for each API, and configure each of them to use a file on a shared file store to load the configuration information dynamically
I like the idea of using a shared file store to load the configuration dynamically. This way, I can easily update the configuration without having to rebuild each API.
Option A seems like a good idea, as it allows me to reuse the same connector configuration across multiple APIs. This way, I don't have to manage multiple configurations, which could be error-prone.
Option A seems like a good idea, as it allows me to reuse the same connector configuration across multiple APIs. This way, I don't have to manage multiple configurations, which could be error-prone.
Lonny
1 years agoMatt
1 years agoRashad
12 months agoSuzan
1 years agoSamira
1 years agoStephaine
12 months agoEnola
12 months agoLanie
1 years agoLeonard
1 years agoYan
1 years agoTeddy
1 years agoMicaela
1 years agoJose
1 years agoTwana
1 years agoVicente
1 years agoJesusita
1 years agoKristian
1 years agoJacob
1 years agoMariko
1 years agoGregoria
1 years agoEdwin
1 years ago