Ah, the Redundant Implementation pattern - where failure is an option, but only if you have a backup plan. It's like the software equivalent of a cat with nine lives.
Option D is way off base. The Redundant Implementation pattern is all about improving availability, not scalability. Somebody needs to go back and read the pattern description again.
Option D is way off base. The Redundant Implementation pattern is all about improving availability, not scalability. Somebody needs to go back and read the pattern description again.
C) The Redundant Implementation pattern can be supplemented with the Intermediate Routing pattern, which can be applied to load balance access to a redundantly deployed service.
B) The Redundant Implementation pattern is concerned with eliminating single point of failure problems associated with services that are actively reused.
Option C is great, the Intermediate Routing pattern can definitely be used in conjunction with Redundant Implementation to load balance the redundant service instances. It's like a dynamic load balancing superhero team!
Option B is definitely the correct answer. The Redundant Implementation pattern is all about eliminating single points of failure, which is crucial for highly reused services.
Hmm, option A seems to be on the right track, but I'm not sure if 'non-agnostic service logic' is the right term here. Isn't the pattern more about redundancy and availability rather than service logic?
Kiera
3 months agoOtis
3 months agoIluminada
2 months agoKatheryn
2 months agoTamra
2 months agoAudry
2 months agoShawnda
3 months agoOlive
2 months agoColeen
2 months agoEliseo
2 months agoRickie
4 months agoCarma
2 months agoKarl
2 months agoEileen
2 months agoIvan
3 months agoAlease
3 months agoJesusa
3 months agoCarmen
4 months agoJustine
4 months agoCordie
4 months agoBette
4 months agoTracey
4 months agoCarmen
4 months ago