* calling code written in Kotlin).) Typically, we want to let a {@link Throwable} from such a
   * method propagate untouched, just as we'd typically let it do for a non-reflective call.
   * However, we can't usually write {@code throw t;} when {@code t} has a static type of {@link
   * Throwable}. But we <i>can</i> write {@code sneakyThrow(t);}.
   *

   * calling code written in Kotlin).) Typically, we want to let a {@link Throwable} from such a
   * method propagate untouched, just as we'd typically let it do for a non-reflective call.
   * However, we can't usually write {@code throw t;} when {@code t} has a static type of {@link
   * Throwable}. But we <i>can</i> write {@code sneakyThrow(t);}.
   *

   *
   * <p>Historically, {@code Function} instances in this library have implemented this method to
   * recognize certain cases where distinct {@code Function} instances would in fact behave
   * identically. However, as code migrates to {@code java.util.function}, that behavior will
   * disappear. It is best not to depend on it.
   */
  @Override
  boolean equals(@Nullable Object obj);

MinIO allows DeleteMarker replication and versioned delete replication by setting `--replicate delete,delete-marker` while setting up replication configuration using `mc replicate add`. The MinIO implementation is based on V2 configuration, however it has been extended to allow both DeleteMarker replication and replication of versioned deletes with the `DeleteMarkerReplication` and `DeleteReplication` fields in the replication configuration. By default, this is set to `Disabled` unless the user...

You don't necessarily need OAuth2 scopes, and you can handle authentication and authorization however you want.

But OAuth2 with scopes can be nicely integrated into your API (with OpenAPI) and your API docs.

Nevertheless, you still enforce those scopes, or any other security/authorization requirement, however you need, in your code.

In many cases, OAuth2 with scopes can be an overkill.

 * {@code asMap} has a few subtleties. As long as the set of keys remains unchanged, adding or
 * removing mappings does not affect the key iteration order. However, if you remove all values
 * associated with a key and then add the key back to the multimap, that key will come last in the
 * key iteration order.
 *

 * }
 * }
 *
 * @author Ben Yu
 * @since 12.0
 */
/*
 * A nullable bound would let users create a TypeParameter instance for a parameter with a nullable
 * bound. However, it would also let them create `new TypeParameter<@Nullable T>() {}`, which
 * wouldn't behave as users might expect. Additionally, it's not clear how the TypeToken API could

   *
   * <p>When passed a key that is present in the map, {@code asMap().get(Object)} has the same
   * behavior as {@link #get}, returning a live collection. When passed a key that is not present,
   * however, {@code asMap().get(Object)} returns {@code null} instead of an empty collection.
   *
   * <p>Though the method signature doesn't say so explicitly, the returned map has {@link
   * SortedSet} values.
   */
  @Override

   */
  public PatternFilenameFilter(Pattern pattern) {
    this.pattern = Preconditions.checkNotNull(pattern);
  }

  /*
   * Our implementation works fine with a null `dir`. However, there's nothing in the documentation
   * of the supertype that suggests that implementations are expected to tolerate null. That said, I
   * see calls in Google code that pass a null `dir` to a FilenameFilter.... So let's declare the

 * a little different from those of other Collection-related features such as {@link
 * CollectionFeature} or {@link SetFeature}.
 *
 * <p>However, when {@link CollectionSize.Require} is used to annotate a test it behaves normally
 * (i.e. it requires the collection instance under test to be a certain size for the test to run).