//
// This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
// it under the terms of the GNU Affero General Public License as published by
// the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
// (at your option) any later version.
//
// This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful
// but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of

//
// This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
// it under the terms of the GNU Affero General Public License as published by
// the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
// (at your option) any later version.
//
// This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful
// but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of

//
// This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
// it under the terms of the GNU Affero General Public License as published by
// the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
// (at your option) any later version.
//
// This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful
// but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of

   *     directly, or use a combination of {@link #throwIfUnchecked} and {@code throw new
   *     RuntimeException(e)}. But consider whether users would be better off if your API threw a
   *     different type of exception. For background on the deprecation, read <a
   *     href="https://github.com/google/guava/wiki/Why-we-deprecated-Throwables.propagate">Why we

            e.decode(buffer, bufferIndex, len);

            /*
             * lastNameOffset ends up pointing to either to
             * the exact location of the filename(e.g. Win98)
             * or to the start of the entry containing the
             * filename(e.g. NT). Ahhrg! In either case the
             * lastNameOffset falls between the start of the
             * entry and the next entry.
             */

### Is concurrency better than parallelism? { #is-concurrency-better-than-parallelism }

Nope! That's not the moral of the story.

Concurrency is different than parallelism. And it is better on **specific** scenarios that involve a lot of waiting. Because of that, it generally is a lot better than parallelism for web application development. But not for everything.

 *
 * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
 * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
 * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND,
 * either express or implied. See the License for the specific language
 * governing permissions and limitations under the License.
 */
package org.codelibs.fess.ds;

import java.io.File;
import java.io.InputStream;

 *
 * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
 * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
 * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND,
 * either express or implied. See the License for the specific language
 * governing permissions and limitations under the License.
 */
package org.codelibs.fess.crawler.extractor.impl;

import java.util.regex.Pattern;

/**

 *
 * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
 * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
 * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND,
 * either express or implied. See the License for the specific language
 * governing permissions and limitations under the License.
 */
package org.codelibs.core.xml;

import java.io.IOException;

/*
 * © 2025 CodeLibs, Inc.
 *
 * This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
 * modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
 * License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
 * version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
 *
 * This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of