- 17 Actual Exam Questions
- Compatible with all Devices
- Printable Format
- No Download Limits
- 90 Days Free Updates
Get All SOA Design & Architecture Lab with Services & Microservices Exam Questions with Validated Answers
| Vendor: | Arcitura Education |
|---|---|
| Exam Code: | S90.08B |
| Exam Name: | SOA Design & Architecture Lab with Services & Microservices |
| Exam Questions: | 17 |
| Last Updated: | October 26, 2025 |
| Related Certifications: | SOA Certified Professional Gen 2 |
| Exam Tags: |
Looking for a hassle-free way to pass the Arcitura Education SOA Design & Architecture Lab with Services & Microservices exam? DumpsProvider provides the most reliable Dumps Questions and Answers, designed by Arcitura Education certified experts to help you succeed in record time. Available in both PDF and Online Practice Test formats, our study materials cover every major exam topic, making it possible for you to pass potentially within just one day!
DumpsProvider is a leading provider of high-quality exam dumps, trusted by professionals worldwide. Our Arcitura Education S90.08B exam questions give you the knowledge and confidence needed to succeed on the first attempt.
Train with our Arcitura Education S90.08B exam practice tests, which simulate the actual exam environment. This real-test experience helps you get familiar with the format and timing of the exam, ensuring you're 100% prepared for exam day.
Your success is our commitment! That's why DumpsProvider offers a 100% money-back guarantee. If you don’t pass the Arcitura Education S90.08B exam, we’ll refund your payment within 24 hours no questions asked.
Don’t waste time with unreliable exam prep resources. Get started with DumpsProvider’s Arcitura Education S90.08B exam dumps today and achieve your certification effortlessly!
Refer to Exhibit.

Service A is a task service that is required to carry out a series of updates to a set of databases in order to complete a task. To perform the database updates. Service A must interact with three other services that each provides standardized data access capabilities.
Service A sends its first update request message to Service B (1), which then responds with a message containing either a success or failure code (2). Service A then sends its second update request message to Service C (3), which also responds with a message containing either a success or failure code (4). Finally, Service A sends a request message to Service D (5), which responds with its own message containing either a success or failure code (6).
Services B, C and D are agnostic services that are reused and shared by multiple service consumers. This has caused unacceptable performance degradation for the service consumers of Service A as it is taking too long to complete its overall task. You've been asked to enhance the service composition architecture so that Service A provides consistent and predictable runtime performance. You are furthermore notified that a new type of data will be introduced to all three databases. It is important that this data is exchanged in a standardized manner so that the data model used for the data in inter-service messages is the same.
What steps can be taken to fulfill these requirements?
This approach isolates the services used by Service A, allowing it to avoid the performance degradation caused by multiple service consumers. By creating redundant implementations of Services B, C, and D that are accessed only by Service A, the Composition Autonomy pattern also ensures that Service A's runtime performance is consistent and predictable. Applying the Canonical Schema pattern ensures that the new type of data is exchanged in a standardized manner, ensuring consistent representation of the data model used for the data in inter-service messages.
Refer to Exhibit.

Service A is a task service that sends Service B a message (2) requesting that Service B return data back to Service A in a response message (3). Depending on the response received, Service A may be required to send a message to Service C (4) for which it requires no response.
Before it contacts Service B, Service A must first retrieve a list of code values from its own database (1) and then place this data into its own memory. If it turns out that it must send a message to Service C, then Service A must combine the data it receives from Service B with the data from the code value list in order to create the message it sends to Service C. If Service A is not required to invoke Service C, it can complete its task by discarding the code values.
Service A and Service C reside in Service Inventory
The problem is that Service A and Service B are using different technologies and cannot communicate. Therefore, an intermediate processing layer can be established that can transform messages from one data format to another at runtime. This can be achieved using the Data Format Transformation pattern.
Additionally, Service C frequently reaches its usage thresholds and is not always available, so an Asynchronous Queuing pattern can be applied to establish an intermediate queue between Service A and Service C. This queue will store the messages sent by Service A to Service C and retransmit them until they are successfully delivered. This approach improves the reliability of the system.
Moreover, the Redundant Implementation pattern can be applied to Service C to ensure its availability and scalability, and the Service Autonomy principle can be applied to make Service C independent of other services.
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?
he Legacy Wrapper pattern can be applied so that Component B is separated into a separate utility service that wraps the shared database. The Legacy Wrapper pattern can be applied again so that Component C is separated into a separate utility service that acts as a wrapper for the legacy system API. The Legacy Wrapper pattern can be applied once more to Component D so that it is separated into another utility service that provides standardized access to the file folder. The Service Facade pattern can be applied so that three facade components are added: one between Component A and each of the new wrapper utility services. This way, the facade components can compensate for any change in behavior that may occur as a result of the separation. The Service Composability principle can be further applied to Service A and the three new wrapper utility services so that all four services are optimized for participation in the new service composition. This will help make up for any performance loss that may result from splitting the three components into separate services.
By applying the Legacy Wrapper pattern to separate Components B, C, and D into three different utility services, the shared resources within the IT enterprise (Database A, the legacy system, and the file folders) can be properly encapsulated and managed by dedicated services. The Service Facade pattern can then be used to create a facade component between Component A and each of the new wrapper utility services, allowing them to interact seamlessly without affecting Service Consumer A's behavior.
Finally, the Service Composability principle can be applied to ensure that Service A and the three new wrapper utility services are optimized for participation in the new service composition. This will help to mitigate any performance loss that may result from splitting the three components into separate services.
Refer to Exhibit.

Service Consumer A and Service A reside in Service Inventory
The Asynchronous Queuing pattern is applied to position a messaging queue between Service A, Service B, Service C, Service D, and Service Consumer A. This ensures that messages can be passed between these services without having to be in a stateful mode.
The Data Model Transformation and Protocol Bridging patterns are applied to enable communication between Service A and Service B, Service A and Service C, and Service A and Service D, despite their different data models and transport protocols.
The Redundant Implementation pattern is applied to bring a copy of Service D in-house to ensure that it can be accessed locally and reduce the unpredictability of its performance.
The Legacy Wrapper pattern is applied to wrap Service D with a standardized service contract that complies with the design standards used in Service Inventory B. This is useful for service consumers who want to use Service D but do not want to change their existing applications or service contracts.
Overall, this approach provides a comprehensive solution that addresses the issues with Service A, Service B, Service C, and Service D, while maintaining compliance with the Service Abstraction principle.
Refer to Exhibit.

The architecture for Service A displayed in the figure shows how the core logic of Service A has expanded over time to connect to a database and a proprietary legacy system (1), and to support two separate service contracts (2) that are accessed by different service consumers.
The service contracts are fully decoupled from the service logic. The service logic is therefore coupled to the service contracts and to the underlying implementation resources (the database and the legacy system).
Service A currently has three service consumers. Service Consumer A and Service Consumer B access Service A's two service contracts (3, 4). Service Consumer C bypasses the service contracts and accesses the service logic directly (5).
You are told that the database and legacy system that are currently being used by Service A are being replaced with different products. The two service contracts are completely decoupled from the core service logic, but there is still a concern that the introduction of the new products will cause the core service logic to behave differently than before.
What steps can be taken to change the Service A architecture in preparation for the introduction of the new products so that the impact on Service Consumers A and B is minimized? What further step can be taken to avoid consumer-to-implementation coupling with Service Consumer C?
The Service Fagade pattern can be applied to position fagade components between the core service logic and the implementation resources (the database and the legacy system). These fagade components will be designed to insulate the core service logic of Service A from the changes in the underlying implementation resources. This will minimize the impact of the introduction of the new products on Service Consumers A and B since the service contracts are fully decoupled from the core service logic. The Schema Centralization and Endpoint Redirection patterns can also be applied to force Service Consumer C to access Service A via one of its existing service contracts, avoiding direct access to the core service logic and the underlying implementation resources.
Security & Privacy
Satisfied Customers
Committed Service
Money Back Guranteed