Java serialization is one way to implement this, however, despite its simplicity of implementation, it has several drawbacks:

- **Performance:** Java's built-in serialization mechanism is often slower compared to other serialization solutions. This is due to Java's use of reflection and the need to maintain a lot of metadata.

  }

  /**
   * Similar to load64, but allows offset + 8 > input.length, padding the result with zeroes. This
   * has to explicitly reverse the order of the bytes as it packs them into the result which makes
   * it slower than the native version.
   *
   * @param input the input bytes
   * @param offset the offset into the array at which to start reading
   * @param length the number of bytes from the input to read

### 3. Failure after conversion
If the conversion is successful, but the generated model is wrong, then state what is wrong:

- Model produces wrong results and/or has lesser accuracy.
- Model produces correct results, but it is slower than expected.

### 4. (optional) RNN conversion support
If converting TF RNN to TFLite fused RNN ops, please prefix [RNN] in the title.

### 5. (optional) Any other info / logs

Java serialization is one way to implement this, however, despite its simplicity of implementation, it has several drawbacks:

- **Performance:**
Java's built-in serialization mechanism is often slower compared to other serialization solutions.
This is due to Java's use of reflection and the need to maintain a lot of metadata.

- **Size of Serialized Data:**

    return stringWriter.toString();
  }

  /**
   * Returns the stack trace of {@code throwable}, possibly providing slower iteration over the full
   * trace but faster iteration over parts of the trace. Here, "slower" and "faster" are defined in
   * comparison to the normal way to access the stack trace, {@link Throwable#getStackTrace()

    return stringWriter.toString();
  }

  /**
   * Returns the stack trace of {@code throwable}, possibly providing slower iteration over the full
   * trace but faster iteration over parts of the trace. Here, "slower" and "faster" are defined in
   * comparison to the normal way to access the stack trace, {@link Throwable#getStackTrace()

				// when Writes() scale higher than Reads()
				// - practically speaking this never happens
				// and should never happen - however it has
				// been seen recently due to hardware issues
				// causes Reads() to go slower than Writes().
				//
				// Send such results anyways as this shall
				// expose a problem underneath.
				if totalPut > throughputHighestPut {
					throughputHighestResults = results

* **Starlette**:
    * Will have the next best performance, after Uvicorn. In fact, Starlette uses Uvicorn to run. So, it probably can only get "slower" than Uvicorn by having to execute more code.
    * But it provides you the tools to build simple web applications, with routing based on paths, etc.

         * This avoids out-of-control memory consumption, and it keeps the cache from growing so
         * large that doing the lookup is noticeably slower than redoing the work would be.
         *
         * Ideally we'd have a real eviction policy, but until we see a problem in practice, I hope

   * because underutilization = free resources for the taking. If we are primarily interested to
   * deal with overflow, then stored permits could be given out /slower/ than fresh ones. Thus, we
   * require a (different in each case) function that translates storedPermits to throttling time.
   *
   * This role is played by storedPermitsToWaitTime(double storedPermits, double permitsToTake). The