*
 * <p>{@code ByteSource} provides two kinds of methods:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li><b>Methods that return a stream:</b> These methods should return a <i>new</i>, independent
 *       instance each time they are called. The caller is responsible for ensuring that the
 *       returned stream is closed.
 *   <li><b>Convenience methods:</b> These are implementations of common operations that are

 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},
 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code

    implements RowSortedTable<R, C, V> {
  /*
   * TODO(jlevy): Consider adding headTable, tailTable, and subTable methods,
   * which return a Table view with rows keys in a given range. Create a
   * RowSortedTable subinterface with the revised methods?
   */

  StandardRowSortedTable(
      SortedMap<R, Map<C, V>> backingMap, Supplier<? extends Map<C, V>> factory) {
    super(backingMap, factory);

 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},
 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code

 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},
 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code

 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},
 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code

 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},
 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code

 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},
 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code

   * implementation of iterator() to define its contents, and methods like contains() are
   * implemented in terms of that method (though they will likely be overridden by subclasses for
   * performance reasons).) This means that a call to this method have can different behavior in GWT
   * and non-GWT environments UNLESS subclasses are careful to always override all methods
   * implemented in terms of sortedDelegate (except comparator()).
   */

import org.apache.http.HttpResponse;
import org.apache.http.HttpStatus;
import org.apache.http.client.HttpClient;
import org.apache.http.client.config.RequestConfig;
import org.apache.http.client.methods.HttpGet;
import org.apache.http.client.methods.HttpUriRequest;
import org.apache.http.impl.client.HttpClientBuilder;
import org.apache.http.util.EntityUtils;
import play.Logger;

import java.util.*;