In this case, it would be better to get **one extra server** and run some processes on it so that they all have **enough RAM and CPU time**.

There's also the chance that for some reason you have a **spike** of usage of your API. Maybe it went viral, or maybe some other services or bots start using it. And you might want to have extra resources to be safe in those cases.

	nFn(empty)
}

func NSG[G any](c RSC[G]) {
	fmt.Println(c)
}

func MMD[Rc RC /* ERROR "not enough type arguments for type RC: have 1, want 2" */ [RG], RG any, G any]() M /* ERROR "not enough type arguments for type" */ [Rc, RG] {

	var nFn NFn /* ERROR "not enough type arguments for type NFn: have 2, want 3" */ [Rc, RG]

	var empty Rc
	switch any(empty).(type) {
	case BC /* ERROR "undefined: BC" */ :

	case RSC[G]:

        public boolean isEmpty() {
            throw new UnsupportedOperationException("This dependents set does not have dependent classes information.");
        }

        @Override
        public boolean hasDependentClasses() {
            throw new UnsupportedOperationException("This dependents set does not have dependent classes information.");
        }

        @Override

			return u.nify(x.elem, y.elem, emode, p)
		}

	case *Struct:
		// Two struct types unify if they have the same sequence of fields,
		// and if corresponding fields have the same names, their (field) types unify,
		// and they have identical tags. Two embedded fields are considered to have the same
		// name. Lower-case field names from different packages are always different.
		if y, ok := y.(*Struct); ok {

# Extra Models

Continuing with the previous example, it will be common to have more than one related model.

This is especially the case for user models, because:

* The **input model** needs to be able to have a password.
* The **output model** should not have a password.
* The **database model** would probably need to have a hashed password.

!!! danger
    Never store user's plaintext passwords. Always store a "secure hash" that you can then verify.

!!! tip
    Notice the autocompletion for `name` and `price`, that was defined in the FastAPI application, in the `Item` model.

You will have inline errors for the data that you send:

<img src="/img/tutorial/generate-clients/image04.png">

The response object will also have autocompletion:

<img src="/img/tutorial/generate-clients/image05.png">

## FastAPI App with Tags

						}
						obj = f
						indirect = e.indirect
						continue // we can't have a matching interface method
					}
					// Collect embedded struct fields for searching the next
					// lower depth, but only if we have not seen a match yet
					// (if we have a match it is either the desired field or
					// we have a name collision on the same depth; in either
					// case we don't need to look further).

						}
						obj = f
						indirect = e.indirect
						continue // we can't have a matching interface method
					}
					// Collect embedded struct fields for searching the next
					// lower depth, but only if we have not seen a match yet
					// (if we have a match it is either the desired field or
					// we have a name collision on the same depth; in either
					// case we don't need to look further).

<blockquote markdown="1">

**FastAPI** wouldn't exist if not for the previous work of others.

There have been many tools created before that have helped inspire its creation.

I have been avoiding the creation of a new framework for several years. First I tried to solve all the features covered by **FastAPI** using many different frameworks, plug-ins, and tools.

      return true // This connection is a perfect match.
    }

    // At this point we don't have a hostname match. But we still be able to carry the request if
    // our connection coalescing requirements are met. See also:
    // https://hpbn.co/optimizing-application-delivery/#eliminate-domain-sharding
    // https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2016/08/18/http2-connection-coalescing/

    // 1. This connection must be HTTP/2.