* variety of sequences of the {@link Iterator#next}, {@link Iterator#hasNext} and {@link
 * Iterator#remove} operations. This utility takes the brute-force approach of trying <i>all</i>
 * possible sequences of these operations, up to a given number of steps. So, if the caller
 * specifies to use <i>n</i> steps, a total of <i>3^n</i> tests are actually performed.
 *

But this example is still valid and it shows how to interact with the internal components.

///

We can also use this same approach to access the request body in an exception handler.

All we need to do is handle the request inside a `try`/`except` block:

{* ../../docs_src/custom_request_and_route/tutorial002_an_py310.py hl[14,16] *}

    this.wordBoundary = wordBoundary;
    this.wordSeparator = wordSeparator;
  }

  /**
   * Converts the specified {@code String str} from this format to the specified {@code format}. A
   * "best effort" approach is taken; if {@code str} does not conform to the assumed format, then
   * the behavior of this method is undefined but we make a reasonable effort at converting anyway.
   */

 * variety of sequences of the {@link Iterator#next}, {@link Iterator#hasNext} and {@link
 * Iterator#remove} operations. This utility takes the brute-force approach of trying <i>all</i>
 * possible sequences of these operations, up to a given number of steps. So, if the caller
 * specifies to use <i>n</i> steps, a total of <i>3^n</i> tests are actually performed.
 *

API changes
-----------

We make changes to Guava's public [APIs][], including adding new APIs, very
carefully. Because of this, if you're interested in seeing a new feature in
Guava, the best approach is to create an [issue][] (or comment on an existing
issue if there is one) requesting the feature and describing specific use cases
for it.

If we decide to pursue a feature request, it will go through a thorough process

For example, it was clear that ideally it should be based on standard Python type hints.

Also, the best approach was to use already existing standards.

So, before even starting to code **FastAPI**, I spent several months studying the specs for OpenAPI, JSON Schema, OAuth2, etc. Understanding their relationship, overlap, and differences.

   *
   * <p>We have chosen this approach over at least two alternatives:
   *
   * <ul>
   *   <li>We could change the serialization of this class incompatibly. We have reserved the right
   *       to make such changes to our serialized forms, and we have made them before, usually
   *       without trouble. In this case, my guess is that our chosen approach is even less likely

# FastAPI in Containers - Docker { #fastapi-in-containers-docker }

When deploying FastAPI applications a common approach is to build a **Linux container image**. It's normally done using <a href="https://www.docker.com/" class="external-link" target="_blank">**Docker**</a>. You can then deploy that container image in one of a few possible ways.

Using Linux containers has several advantages including **security**, **replicability**, **simplicity**, and others.

/// tip

rem Use Java source-launch mode (JDK 11+) to parse jvm.config
rem This avoids batch script parsing issues with special characters (pipes, quotes, @, etc.)
rem Use temp file approach with cmd /c to ensure proper file handle release

set "JVM_CONFIG_TEMP=%TEMP%\mvn-jvm-config-%RANDOM%-%RANDOM%.txt"

rem Debug logging (set MAVEN_DEBUG_SCRIPT=1 to enable)
if defined MAVEN_DEBUG_SCRIPT (

            int port = 445;

            // Use default local port (0 means system assigns)
            int localPort = 0;

            // Get CIFSContext from configuration - this is a simplified approach
            // In a real implementation, this should be passed from the session context
            jcifs.CIFSContext context = createDefaultContext();

            // Create transport with multi-channel specific settings