Can I configure MySQL Replication as Master - Master - Slave?
M1 &lt;-&gt; M2 -&gt; S is essentially the only configuration.  Pros/cons...


Even old versions of MySQL could be configured that way.  M1 and M2 are configured as slaves to each other; S is configured as a slave to M2 (and knows nothing about M1).  Each server needs a distinct server_id.
By having dual master, you have easier failover than if you had simply M->S.
It is probably safer to do what you plan, namely having different apps talking to different Masters, than to have all apps talk to either Master.  This is because of issues with auto_increment and duplicate keys.
The Slave is handy for backups, heavy reads, etc, but...
If M1 crashes and you failover to M2, use S to reconstruct M1, but...
If M2 crashes and you failover to M1, S cannot easily be connected to M1.  It would probably be best to assume that you lost S at the same time and rebuild both.  (There are issues of binlog positions, etc.  GTIDs, if turned on, may make this "not an issue"; this is something to research.)
Since you seem to have 3 servers, why not go with Galera?  That eliminates most of the issues mentioned -- you can write to any server; loss of any server is automatically repaired; etc.  Group Replication is another smart idea.