SOA S90.08B valid study dumps : SOA Design & Architecture Lab with Services & Microservices

Refer to Exhibit.

Our service inventory contains the following three services that provide Invoice-related data access capabilities: Invoice, InvProc and Proclnv. These services were created at different times by different project teams and were not required to comply with any design standards. Therefore, each of these services has a different data model for representing invoice data.
Currently, each of these three services has a different service consumer: Service Consumer A accesses the Invoice service (1), Service Consumer B (2) accesses the InvProc service, and Service Consumer C (3) accesses the Proclnv service. Each service consumer invokes a data access capability of an invoice-related service, requiring that service to interact with the shared accounting database that is used by all invoice-related services (4, 5, 6).
Additionally, Service Consumer D was designed to access invoice data from the shared accounting database directly (7). (Within the context of this architecture, Service Consumer D is labeled as a service consumer because it is accessing a resource that is related to the illustrated service architectures.) Assuming that the Invoice service, InvProc service and Proclnv service are part of the same service inventory, what steps would be required to fully apply the Official Endpoint pattern?

• A. Because Service Consumers A, B, and C are already carrying out their data access via published contracts, they are not affected by the Official Endpoint pattern. Service Consumer D needs to be redesigned so that it does not access the shared accounting database directly, but instead performs its data access by interacting with the official invoice-related service. The Service Abstraction principle can be further applied to hide the existence of the shared accounting database and other implementation details from current and future service consumers.
• B. One of the invoice-related services needs to be chosen as the official service providing invoice data access capabilities. Because Service Consumer D does not rely on an invoice-related service, it is not affected by the Official Endpoint pattern and can continue to access the accounting database directly. The Service Loose Coupling principle can be further applied to decouple Service Consumers A, B, and C from the shared accounting database and other implementation details.
• C. One of the invoice-related services needs to be chosen as the official service providing invoice data access capabilities. Service Consumers A, B, and C then need to be redesigned to only access the chosen invoice-related service. Because Service Consumer D does not rely on an invoice-related service, it is not affected by the Official Endpoint pattern and can continue to access the accounting database directly. The Service Abstraction principle can be further applied to hide the existence of the shared accounting database and other implementation details from current and future service consumers.
• D. One of the invoice-related services needs to be chosen as the official service providing invoice data access capabilities and logic from the other two services needs to be moved to execute within the context of the official Invoice service. Service Consumers A, B, and C then need to be redesigned to only access the chosen invoice-related service. Service Consumer D also needs to be redesigned to not access the shared accounting database directly, but to also perform its data access by interacting with the official invoice-related service. The Service Abstraction principle can be further applied to hide the existence of the shared accounting database and other implementation details from current and future service consumers.

Refer to Exhibit.

Services A, B, and C are non-agnostic task services. Service A and Service B use the same shared state database to defer their state data at runtime.
An assessment of the three services reveals that each contains some agnostic logic that cannot be made available for reuse because it is bundled together with non-agnostic logic.
The assessment also determines that because Service A, Service B and the shared state database are each located in physically separate environments, the remote communication required for Service A and Service B to interact with the shared state database is causing an unreasonable decrease in runtime performance.
How can the application of the Orchestration pattern improve this architecture?

• A. The Orchestration pattern is not applicable to this architecture because it does not support the hosting of the required state repository.
• B. The application of the Orchestration pattern will result in an environment whereby the Official Endpoint, State Repository, and Service Data Replication patterns are automatically applied, allowing the shared state database to be replicated via official service endpoints for Services A and B so that each task service can have its own dedicated state database.
• C. The application of the Orchestration pattern will result in an environment whereby the Compensating Service Transaction is automatically applied, resulting In the opportunity to create sophisticated exception logic that can be used to compensate for the performance problems caused by Services A and B having to remotely access the state database. The API Gateway and Service Broker patterns are also automatically applied, providing common transformation functions in a centralized processing layer to help overcome any disparity in the service contracts that will need to be created for the new agnostic services.
• D. The application of the Orchestration pattern will result in an environment whereby the non-agnostic logic can be cleanly separated from the agnostic logic that exists in Services A, B, and C, resulting in the need to design new agnostic services with reuse potential assured through the application of the Service Reusability principle. The State Repository pattern, which is supported by and local to the orchestration environment, provides a central state database that can be shared by Services A and B. The local state database avoids problems with remote communication.