## About security, APIs, and docs { #about-security-apis-and-docs }

Hiding your documentation user interfaces in production *shouldn't* be the way to protect your API.

That doesn't add any extra security to your API, the *path operations* will still be available where they are.

If there's a security flaw in your code, it will still exist.

<module>
<source path="">
  <!-- Hack to keep collect from hiding collect.testing supersource: -->
  <exclude name="**/testing/**"/>
</source>

<!--
    We used to set this only for packages that had manual supersource. That
    worked everywhere that I know of except for one place: when running the GWT
    util.concurrent tests under Guava.

    The problem is that GWT responds poorly to two .gwt.xml files in the same
    Java package; see

<module>
<source path="">
  <!-- Hack to keep collect from hiding collect.testing supersource: -->
  <exclude name="**/testing/**"/>
</source>

<!--
    We used to set this only for packages that had manual supersource. That
    worked everywhere that I know of except for one place: when running the GWT
    util.concurrent tests under Guava.

    The problem is that GWT responds poorly to two .gwt.xml files in the same
    Java package; see

<module>
<source path="">
  <!-- Hack to keep collect from hiding collect.testing supersource: -->
  <exclude name="**/testing/**"/>
</source>

<!--
    We used to set this only for packages that had manual supersource. That
    worked everywhere that I know of except for one place: when running the GWT
    util.concurrent tests under Guava.

    The problem is that GWT responds poorly to two .gwt.xml files in the same
    Java package; see

<module>
<source path="">
  <!-- Hack to keep collect from hiding collect.testing supersource: -->
  <exclude name="**/testing/**"/>
</source>

<!--
    We used to set this only for packages that had manual supersource. That
    worked everywhere that I know of except for one place: when running the GWT
    util.concurrent tests under Guava.

    The problem is that GWT responds poorly to two .gwt.xml files in the same
    Java package; see

<module>
<source path="">
  <!-- Hack to keep collect from hiding collect.testing supersource: -->
  <exclude name="**/testing/**"/>
</source>

<!--
    We used to set this only for packages that had manual supersource. That
    worked everywhere that I know of except for one place: when running the GWT
    util.concurrent tests under Guava.

    The problem is that GWT responds poorly to two .gwt.xml files in the same
    Java package; see

<module>
<source path="">
  <!-- Hack to keep collect from hiding collect.testing supersource: -->
  <exclude name="**/testing/**"/>
</source>

<!--
    We used to set this only for packages that had manual supersource. That
    worked everywhere that I know of except for one place: when running the GWT
    util.concurrent tests under Guava.

    The problem is that GWT responds poorly to two .gwt.xml files in the same
    Java package; see

<module>
<source path="">
  <!-- Hack to keep collect from hiding collect.testing supersource: -->
  <exclude name="**/testing/**"/>
</source>

<!--
    We used to set this only for packages that had manual supersource. That
    worked everywhere that I know of except for one place: when running the GWT
    util.concurrent tests under Guava.

    The problem is that GWT responds poorly to two .gwt.xml files in the same
    Java package; see

<module>
<source path="">
  <!-- Hack to keep collect from hiding collect.testing supersource: -->
  <exclude name="**/testing/**"/>
</source>

<!--
    We used to set this only for packages that had manual supersource. That
    worked everywhere that I know of except for one place: when running the GWT
    util.concurrent tests under Guava.

    The problem is that GWT responds poorly to two .gwt.xml files in the same
    Java package; see

   *     the {@link ExecutionException} thrown by {@code input.get()} or, if {@code get()} throws a
   *     different kind of exception, that exception itself. To avoid hiding bugs and other
   *     unrecoverable errors, callers should prefer more specific types, avoiding {@code
   *     Throwable.class} in particular.