"properties" : {
          "createdBy" : {
            "type" : "keyword"
          },
          "createdTime" : {
            "type" : "long"
          },
          "queries" : {
            "type" : "keyword"
          },
          "term" : {
            "type" : "keyword"
          },
          "updatedBy" : {
            "type" : "keyword"
          },
          "updatedTime" : {

 * @param <T1>
 *            The type of the first value
 * @param <T2>
 *            The type of the second value
 */
public class Pair<T1, T2> {

    /** The first value */
    protected T1 first;

    /** The second value */
    protected T2 second;

    /**
     * Creates and returns a pair of two values.
     *
     * @param <T1>
     *            The type of the first value
     * @param <T2>

 *       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

    buf.readShort() // additional record count

    for (i in 0 until questionCount) {
      skipName(buf) // name
      buf.readShort() // type
      buf.readShort() // class
    }

    for (i in 0 until answerCount) {
      skipName(buf) // name

      val type = buf.readShort().toInt() and 0xffff
      buf.readShort() // class
      @Suppress("UNUSED_VARIABLE")

      |Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=BbC04y
      |
      |--BbC04y
      |Content-Disposition: file; filename="file1.txt"
      |Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
      |
      |... contents of file1.txt ...
      |--BbC04y
      |Content-Disposition: file; filename="file2.gif"
      |Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
      |Content-Type: image/gif
      |

 *
 * <h3>For Java 8+ users</h3>
 *
 * <p>This interface is now a legacy type. Use {@code java.util.function.Supplier} (or the
 * appropriate primitive specialization such as {@code IntSupplier}) instead whenever possible.
 * Otherwise, at least reduce <i>explicit</i> dependencies on this type by using lambda expressions
 * or method references instead of classes, leaving your code easier to migrate in the future.
 *