while (handle.isActive()) {
                try {
                    // Note: Actual SMB2 Change Notify implementation would go here
                    // For now, this is a placeholder that simulates monitoring

                    // In a real implementation, we would:
                    // 1. Send SMB2 Change Notify request
                    // 2. Wait for response
                    // 3. Process changes

                                // MNG-3769: the [probably relocated] artifact is excluded.
                                // We could process exclusions on relocated artifact details in the
                                // MavenMetadataSource.createArtifacts(..) step, BUT that would
                                // require resolving the POM from the repository very early on in
                                // the build.

The history of **FastAPI** is in great part the history of its predecessors.

As said in the section [Alternatives](alternatives.md){.internal-link target=_blank}:

<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.

          // caught and forwarded to the service the task would stop executing but the service would
          // have no idea.
          // TODO(lukes): consider building everything in terms of ListenableScheduledFuture then
          // the AbstractService could monitor the future directly. Rescheduling is still hard...
          // but it would help with some of these lock ordering issues.
          scheduleFailure = e;

   *
   * Since these fields are non-final that means that TimeoutFuture is not being 'safely published',
   * thus a motivated caller may be able to expose the reference to another thread that would then
   * call cancel() and be unable to cancel the delegate.
   * There are a number of ways to solve this, none of which are very pretty, and it is currently

        That's a lot of work they are doing, but if more FastAPI users came to help others like them just a little bit more, it would be much less effort for them (and you and me 😅).

        By asking questions in a structured way (following this) it will be much easier to help you.

   *
   * 2. `other[size] = null` is unsound. We could "fix" this by requiring callers to pass in an
   * array with a nullable element type. But probably they usually want an array with a non-nullable
   * type. That said, we could *accept* a `@Nullable T[]` (which, given that we treat arrays as
   * covariant, would still permit a plain `T[]`) and return a plain `T[]`. But of course that would

   * {@code stream} and their indices in the stream. For example,
   *
   * {@snippet :
   * mapWithIndex(
   *     Stream.of("a", "b", "c"),
   *     (e, index) -> index + ":" + e)
   * }
   *
   * <p>would return {@code Stream.of("0:a", "1:b", "2:c")}.
   *
   * <p>The resulting stream is <a
   * href="http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/html/StreamParallelGuidance.html">efficiently splittable</a>

 * such custom interfaces directly; they are implemented only in subclasses. Therefore, forwarding
 * {@code equals} would break symmetry, as the forwarding object might consider itself equal to the
 * object being tested, but the reverse could not be true. This behavior is consistent with the
 * JDK's collection wrappers, such as {@link java.util.Collections#unmodifiableCollection}. Use an

    if (a == b) {
      return true;
    }
    if (a == null || b == null) {
      return false;
    }
    return doEquivalent(a, b);
  }

  /**
   * @since 10.0 (previously, subclasses would override equivalent())
   */
  @ForOverride
  protected abstract boolean doEquivalent(T a, T b);

  /**
   * <i>May</i> return {@code true} if {@code object} is a {@code Equivalence} that behaves