Salesforce Plat-Arch-204 Exam Dumps

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.

When integrating Salesforce with high-security enterprise systems like an Enterprise Billing System (EBS) and a Document Management System (DMS), the primary architectural concern is respecting the Enterprise security needs for access control. These systems often contain highly sensitive financial data and are governed by strict regulatory requirements (e.g., PCI-DSS or GDPR).

The integration consultant must evaluate how to extend existing enterprise identity and authorization policies to Salesforce users. This often involves a Identity Federation strategy using protocols like SAML 2.0 or OpenID Connect. Instead of maintaining separate credentials in Salesforce (which Option A suggests and is generally an 'anti-pattern' for 10 million records), the consultant should consider using a central Identity Provider (IdP).

By considering enterprise security needs, the architect ensures that when a support agent clicks a link in Salesforce to view a bill, the request is authenticated against the enterprise's security gateway. This allows for Single Sign-On (SSO) while ensuring that authorization (who can see what) remains mastered in the source systems or the central IdP. Migration (Option C) is physically and technically unfeasible for systems handling 10 million customers' historical bills and real-time processing. The focused objective is to build a 'window' into these systems from Salesforce while maintaining the integrity of the enterprise's existing security perimeter.

When dealing with a 'big surge' or high-volume influx of requests, a synchronous pattern like Request and Reply (Option A) can lead to significant performance bottlenecks. In a synchronous model, each Salesforce user thread must wait for the external scheduling system to respond, which could lead to 'Concurrent Request Limit' errors during peak times.

The Remote Process Invocation---Fire and Forget pattern is the architecturally sound choice for managing surges. In this pattern, Salesforce captures the registration intent and immediately hands it off to an asynchronous process or a middleware queue. Salesforce does not wait for the external system to process the room capacity logic; instead, it receives a simple acknowledgment that the message was received.23

This pattern decouples the front-end user experience from the back-end processing limits. Middleware can then 'drip-feed' these registration4s into the scheduling system at a rate it can handl5e. If the scheduling system becomes overwhelmed or goes offline, the messages remain safely in the queue. Option C (Batch) is unsuitable because users expect near real-time feedback on their registration attempt, even if the final confirmation is sent a few minutes later. By utilizing Fire and Forget, NTO ensures a responsive Community Experience during the critical launch window while maintaining system stability.

Achieving 'exactly once' delivery and high reliability in a critical finance integration requires an asynchronous pattern that provides better control and error handling than standard @future methods. Queueable Apex is the architecturally preferred solution for this scenario.

Queueable Apex offers several advantages over @future methods:

Stateful tracking: Unlike @future, Queueable jobs return a Job ID, allowing the system to monitor progress and verify completion.

Chaining: You can chain jobs to process records sequentially, which helps maintain the integrity of order and line item data.

Complex Data Types: Queueables can accept complex objects as parameters, making it easier to pass high-fidelity order data than the primitive types required by @future.

Option A is unreliable because it relies on human intervention for retries, which is prone to error and does not scale. Option C is less desirable because @future methods cannot be monitored as effectively and lack the ability to return a Job ID for subsequent tracking.

To ensure accurate invoicing, the architect should design the Queueable class with a custom error handling process that includes logging failures and a retry mechanism. Additionally, to prevent duplicate invoicing, the finance application should be designed with an Idempotency check (using a unique Order ID from Salesforce) to ensure that if a retry is sent, the system recognizes the duplicate and does not create a second invoice. This combination of Queueable Apex and idempotency provides the highest level of reliability for critical financial transactions.

In a contract-first integration strategy using RAML (RESTful API Modeling Language), the specification defines the exact structure of requests and responses. Because Salesforce unit tests cannot perform actual network callouts, the platform requires d1evelopers to use the HttpCalloutMock interface to simulate responses.

To ensure that the integration code strictly adheres to the established RAML contract, the integration architect must mandate that the HttpCalloutMock implementation returns responses that mirror the RAML specification. This means the mock must include all required fields, correct data types, and the expected HTTP status codes (e.g., 200 OK, 201 Created) as defined in the contract. By doing this, the unit tests verify that the Apex client code can successfully parse and process the specific JSON or XML payloads defined in the RAML spec.

Option A and B are technically imprecise. The Apex client does not 'implement' the mock; rather, the test class provides a separate mock implementation to the runtime via Test.setMock(). The value of the integration architecture lies in the content of that mock. If the mock is designed to return contract-compliant data, then any change to the RAML that breaks the Apex code's ability to process it will be caught immediately during the testing phase. This 'Mock-as-a-Contract' approach provides a safety net, ensuring that Salesforce remains compatible with external services even as those services evolve, provided the RAML is kept up to date.