A go-live readiness review is underway and the panel is walking through a proposed service map. Which finding should send a candidate boundary back for revision?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
If one business transaction has to be atomic but it crosses two services with no shared context, send that boundary back. You can’t guarantee atomicity without brittle distributed coordination. Multiple operations, multiple clients, or shared config aren’t the red flag here.
Full Explanation
The finding that should send a candidate boundary back for revision is the one where a single business transaction that must be atomic spans two proposed services with no shared context between them. If completing one transaction requires coordinating across services that do not share context, atomicity cannot be guaranteed without brittle distributed coordination, so the boundary needs to move.
The option saying a proposed service exposes more than one operation is incorrect because a service exposing several related operations is normal and not a boundary defect by itself.
The option saying a proposed service is used by more than one client application is incorrect because reuse by multiple clients is expected of a well-designed service.
The option saying a proposed service depends on a shared configuration file is incorrect because shared configuration is an operational detail, not evidence that a transaction was split.
For the exam, treat a split transaction as the disqualifying finding, not surface-level service size.