BONUS!!! Download part of ActualPDF Plat-Arch-204 dumps for free: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1moTTQ1l6ZQMpQsfIsoOmyG8zFbIM9nz0
Our Plat-Arch-204 study guide and training materials of ActualPDF are summarized by experienced IT experts, who combine the Plat-Arch-204 original questions and real answers. Due to our professional team, the passing rate of Plat-Arch-204 test of our ActualPDF is the highest in the Plat-Arch-204 exam training. So, choosing ActualPDF, choosing success.
| Topic | Details |
|---|---|
| Topic 1 |
|
| Topic 2 |
|
| Topic 3 |
|
| Topic 4 |
|
| Topic 5 |
|
>> Plat-Arch-204 Exam Study Solutions <<
Our customers receive Salesforce Plat-Arch-204 questions updates for up to 365 days after their purchase. They can also try a free demo for satisfaction before buying our Salesforce Plat-Arch-204 dumps. And a 24/7 support system assists them whenever they are stuck in any problem or issue. This Salesforce Plat-Arch-204 Questions is a complete package and a blessing for candidates who want to prepare quickly for the Plat-Arch-204 exam. Buy It Now!
NEW QUESTION # 60
A company needs to integrate a legacy on-premise application that can only support SOAP API. After the integration architect evaluates the requirements and volume, they determine that the Fire and Forget integration pattern will be most appropriate for sending data from Salesforce to the external application and getting response back in a strongly-typed format.
Which integration capabilities should be used to integrate the two systems?
Answer: C
Explanation:
When integrating with a legacy SOAP-only application using a Fire and Forget pattern, Salesforce Outbound Messaging is the native, declarative choice.
Outbound Messaging is a platform feature that sends a SOAP message to a designated endpoint when specific criteria are met. It is inherently asynchronous and provides built-in reliability; if the legacy system is offline, Salesforce will automatically retry the delivery for up to 24 hours. This perfectly fits the "Fire and Forget" requirement.
For the strongly-typed response back (Remote Call-In), the Enterprise WSDL is the correct recommendation.1415 Enterprise WSDL: This is a strongly-typed WSDL generated specifically for one org's metadata. It includes specific references to16 custom objects and fields, ensu17ring that the legacy system can communicate with Salesforce using a rigid, predictable data structure.
Partner WSDL (Option C): This is a loosely-typed WSDL designed for developers building tools that must work across many different orgs; it is not ideal for an internal, strongly-typed legacy integration.
While Platform Events (Option B) are a modern alternative, they typically use REST or Streaming APIs, making them a less natural fit for an application that "can only support SOAP". By combining Outbound Messaging and the Enterprise WSDL, the architect provides a robust, SOAP-native solution that satisfies the business's technical constraints and reliability requirements.
NEW QUESTION # 61
A company accepts payment requests 24/7. Once the company accepts a payment request, its service level agreement (SLA) requires it to make sure each payment request is processed by its Payment System. The company tracks payment requests using a globally unique identifier created at the Data Entry Point. The company's simplified flow is as shown in the diagram.
The company encounters intermittent update errors when two or more processes try to update the same Payment Request record at the same time. Which recommendation should an integration architect make to improve the company's SLA and update conflict handling?
Answer: A
Explanation:
In high-concurrency environments like 24/7 payment processing, a common architectural failure is "race conditions," where multiple threads attempt to update the same record simultaneously. To resolve this while strictly adhering to a Service Level Agreement (SLA), the Integration Architect must shift the responsibility of orchestration to a central "nervous system"-the Middleware (e.g., MuleSoft or an ESB).
According to Salesforce Integration best practices, Middleware coordination is essential for managing the state and sequencing of asynchronous messages. By having the Middleware coordinate request delivery, it can implement a "Sequential Processing" or "First-In-First-Out" (FIFO) queue logic. This ensures that even if the Data Entry Point pushes requests at high speed, the Middleware can throttle or serialize the calls to the Payment System, preventing the record-locking errors and update conflicts mentioned in the scenario.
Furthermore, the globally unique identifier created at the Data Entry Point allows the Middleware to perform Idempotency checks. If a duplicate request arrives or an error occurs, the Middleware can use this ID to verify the status before attempting another update, ensuring that the "exactly-once" processing requirement of the SLA is met without creating duplicate payment records or conflicting status updates.
While Option B suggests retries-which are necessary for a "Fire-and-Forget" pattern-retrying without central coordination often exacerbates update conflicts rather than solving them. Option C (processing once) is a result of a well-designed system, but it does not provide the mechanism to handle the specific update conflicts described. By recommending that the Middleware coordinate the entire flow, the architect provides a robust solution that manages delivery, handles retries gracefully, and ensures data integrity across the system landscape.
NEW QUESTION # 62
Northern Trail Outfitters is in the final stages of merging two Salesforce orgs, but needs to keep the retiring org available for a short period of time for lead management as it is connected to multiple public website forms. The sales department has requested that new leads are available in the new Salesforce instance within 30 minutes. Which approach requires the least amount of development effort?
Answer: B
Explanation:
In an org merger scenario, a Salesforce Platform Integration Architect must often design interim solutions that balance speed of delivery with minimal development overhead. The requirement here is for leads to be synced within a 30-minute window. This is a relatively low-latency requirement that does not strictly necessitate a real-time, event-driven architecture, which typically requires more complex infrastructure like Platform Events or middleware.
Option A, calling the Salesforce REST API to insert leads into the target system, represents the standard, most straightforward approach. Since both systems are Salesforce orgs, the retiring org can be configured to make an outbound REST call to the new org's standard Lead endpoint. This can be achieved with a small amount of Apex code (such as a trigger or an invocable method called by a Flow). This approach is considered the "least development effort" because it leverages the standard REST API, which is already enabled and authenticated via a Connected App in the target org. It requires no custom API development in the target system and uses standard JSON payloads.
Option B is incorrect because the Tooling API is intended for managing metadata, system settings, and developer tools, not for standard transactional data movement like Lead insertion. Option C, using the Composite REST API, is an optimization technique designed to group multiple requests into a single call to save on API limits. While efficient for high-volume scenarios, it introduces additional development complexity regarding payload construction and bulk error handling that exceeds the "least effort" requirement for a simple Lead sync. Therefore, a standard REST call is the most direct path to meeting the 30-minute SLA with minimal coding.
NEW QUESTION # 63
A company needs to integrate a legacy on-premise application that can only support SOAP API. The integration architect determines that the Fire and Forget integration pattern is most appropriate for sending data from Salesforce to the external application and getting a response back in a strongly-typed format. Which integration capabilities should be used?
Answer: C
Explanation:
For an outbound, declarative, Fire-and-Forget integration to a legacy SOAP-based system, Salesforce Outbound Messaging is the native tool of choice. Outbound Messaging sends an XML message to a designated endpoint when specific criteria are met. It is highly reliable as Salesforce will automatically retry the delivery for up to 24 hours if the target system is unavailable.
For the communication back from the legacy system to Salesforce, a strongly-typed SOAP API approach is required. The Enterprise WSDL is the correct recommendation here because it is a strongly-typed WSDL that is specific to the organization's unique data model (including custom objects and fields). Using the Enterprise WSDL allows the legacy system to communicate with Salesforce using specific data types, providing compile-time safety and reducing errors during the mapping process.
Option A is less efficient because Platform Events would likely require middleware to translate the event into the legacy system's SOAP format. Option B suggests the Partner WSDL, which is loosely-typed and designed for developers building tools that must work across many different Salesforce orgs. Since this is an internal integration for a specific company, the Enterprise WSDL provides a much more streamlined development experience with better data integrity. By combining Outbound Messaging (for fire-and-forget delivery) and the Enterprise WSDL (for the strongly-typed callback), the architect fulfills the technical requirements while minimizing custom code.
NEW QUESTION # 64
What is the first thing an integration architect should validate if a callout from a Lightning web component to an external endpoint is failing?
Answer: C
Explanation:
When an integration callout initiated from a Lightning Web Component (LWC) fails, the architect must distinguish between client-side and server-side security layers. Unlike Apex callouts, which are governed by Remote Site Settings at the server level, LWC requests originate directly from the user's browser. Consequently, they are subject to the browser's Content Security Policy (CSP).
CSP is a security layer that helps detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) and data injection attacks. It prevents a website from loading content from a third party unless that domain is explicitly safe-listed. If an LWC attempts to connect to an external API endpoint that is not listed in the CSP Trusted Sites in Salesforce Setup, the browser will block the request before it is even sent, often returning a "Refused to connect because it violates the document's Content Security Policy" error. While Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) is also a browser-level security mechanism, it must be configured on the external server to allow the browser to access its resources; however, the first validation step within the Salesforce environment for a failing LWC callout is ensuring the domain is allowed by the org's CSP.
NEW QUESTION # 65
......
Our Salesforce Plat-Arch-204 Online test engine is convenient and easy to learn, it supports all web browsers. If you want, you can have offline practice. One of the most outstanding features of Salesforce Certified Platform Integration Architect Plat-Arch-204 Online test engine is it has testing history and performance review. You can have general review of what you have learnt. Besides, Plat-Arch-204 Exam Braindumps offer you free demo to have a try before buying.
Plat-Arch-204 Test Registration: https://www.actualpdf.com/Plat-Arch-204_exam-dumps.html
P.S. Free 2026 Salesforce Plat-Arch-204 dumps are available on Google Drive shared by ActualPDF: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1moTTQ1l6ZQMpQsfIsoOmyG8zFbIM9nz0