</plugin>
      <plugin>
        <artifactId>maven-dependency-plugin</artifactId>
        <executions>
          <execution>
            <id>unpack-failureaccess-sources</id>
            <phase>generate-resources</phase>
            <goals><goal>unpack-dependencies</goal></goals>
            <configuration>
              <includeArtifactIds>failureaccess</includeArtifactIds>
              <classifier>sources</classifier>

      <plugin>
        <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
        <artifactId>maven-dependency-plugin</artifactId>
        <executions>
          <execution>
            <id>unpack-jline-native</id>
            <goals>
              <goal>unpack-dependencies</goal>
            </goals>
            <configuration>
              <includeArtifactIds>jline-native</includeArtifactIds>

import okio.buffer

/**
 * Read and write HPACK v10.
 *
 * http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-12
 *
 * This implementation uses an array for the dynamic table and a list for indexed entries. Dynamic
 * entries are added to the array, starting in the last position moving forward. When the array
 * fills, it is doubled.
 */
@Suppress("NAME_SHADOWING")
object Hpack {
  private const val PREFIX_4_BITS = 0x0f

  //   system scheduling and as such we could either miss our deadline, or unpark() could be delayed
  //   so that it looks like we timed out even though we didn't. For comparison FutureTask respects
  //   completion preferably and AQS is non-deterministic (depends on where in the queue the waiter
  //   is). If we wanted to be strict about it, we could store the unpark() time in the Waiter node

  //   system scheduling and as such we could either miss our deadline, or unpark() could be delayed
  //   so that it looks like we timed out even though we didn't. For comparison FutureTask respects
  //   completion preferably and AQS is non-deterministic (depends on where in the queue the waiter
  //   is). If we wanted to be strict about it, we could store the unpark() time in the Waiter node

    Lock lockB = factory.newReentrantLock(OtherOrder.SECOND);

    lockA.lock();
    lockA.lock();
    lockB.lock();
    lockB.lock();
    lockA.unlock();
    lockA.unlock();
    lockB.unlock();
    lockB.unlock();
  }

  public void testExplicitOrdering_acquiringMultipleLocksWithSameRank() {
    CycleDetectingLockFactory.WithExplicitOrdering<OtherOrder> factory =

    Lock lockB = factory.newReentrantLock(OtherOrder.SECOND);

    lockA.lock();
    lockA.lock();
    lockB.lock();
    lockB.lock();
    lockA.unlock();
    lockA.unlock();
    lockB.unlock();
    lockB.unlock();
  }

  public void testExplicitOrdering_acquiringMultipleLocksWithSameRank() {
    CycleDetectingLockFactory.WithExplicitOrdering<OtherOrder> factory =

            guidToHandle.put(guid, info);

            if (type == HandleType.PERSISTENT) {
                persistHandle(info);
            }
        } finally {
            lock.writeLock().unlock();
        }

        log.debug("Requested {} handle for path: {}", type, path);
        return guid;
    }

    /**
     * Update the file ID for a handle after successful create response

        } finally {
            lock.writeLock().unlock();
        }
    }

    /**
     * Invalidate the cache
     */
    public void invalidate() {
        lock.writeLock().lock();
        try {
            children.clear();
            isComplete = false;
            hasChanges = true;
        } finally {
            lock.writeLock().unlock();
        }
    }

    /**

 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>for an unnested {@code lock()} and {@code unlock()}, a cycle detecting lock takes 38ns as
 *       opposed to the 24ns taken by a plain lock.
 *   <li>for nested locking, the cost increases with the depth of the nesting:
 *       <ul>
 *         <li>2 levels: average of 64ns per lock()/unlock()
 *         <li>3 levels: average of 77ns per lock()/unlock()
 *         <li>4 levels: average of 99ns per lock()/unlock()