In this case, it would be better to get **one extra server** and run some processes on it so that they all have **enough RAM and CPU time**.

There's also the chance that for some reason you have a **spike** of usage of your API. Maybe it went viral, or maybe some other services or bots start using it. And you might want to have extra resources to be safe in those cases.

In this case, you could want to document how that external API *should* look like. What *path operation* it should have, what body it should expect, what response it should return, etc.

## An app with callbacks

Let's see all this with an example.

Imagine you develop an app that allows creating invoices.

These invoices will have an `id`, `title` (optional), `customer`, and `total`.

  /*
   * Ideally, this class would have exposed only constructors that require a non-null cause. See
   * https://github.com/jspecify/jspecify-reference-checker/blob/61aafa4ae52594830cfc2d61c8b113009dbdb045/src/main/java/com/google/jspecify/nullness/NullSpecTransfer.java#L789
   * and https://github.com/jspecify/jspecify/issues/490.
   *
   * (Perhaps it should also have required that its cause was a RuntimeException. However, that

* Maven test harness for plugin execution model
* Eclipse IDE tooling for plugin execution model and metadata model

- we also seem to have information like the plugin lifecycle model that's buried inside the maven execution model
- we also seem to have artifact information tangled inside the plugin model
- we have to deal with scripting implementations (groovy, beanshell, ruby)
- we need to deal with a shared context for plugins, like the guarded mojos

wouldn't suit the works!' he added looking angrily at the March
Hare.

  `It was the BEST butter,' the March Hare meekly replied.

  `Yes, but some crumbs must have got in as well,' the Hatter
grumbled:  `you shouldn't have put it in with the bread-knife.'

  The March Hare took the watch and looked at it gloomily:  then
he dipped it into his cup of tea, and looked at it again:  but he

	Key     string   `xml:"Key,omitempty" json:"Key,omitempty"`
	Value   string   `xml:"Value,omitempty" json:"Value,omitempty"`
}

var (
	errInvalidTagKey   = Errorf("The TagKey you have provided is invalid")
	errInvalidTagValue = Errorf("The TagValue you have provided is invalid")
)

func (tag Tag) String() string {
	return tag.Key + "=" + tag.Value
}

// IsEmpty returns whether this tag is empty or not.

                    // only have second precision
                    // there seems to be some random factor (adding one second)
                    int diff = Math.abs((int) ( ( time / 1000 ) - ( f.lastModified() / 1000 ) ));
                    Assert.assertTrue("Have set time correctly", diff < 2);
                }
                else {

But you still need to use `Path` for the `item_id` path parameter. And you don't want to use `Annotated` for some reason.

Python will complain if you put a value with a "default" before a value that doesn't have a "default".

But you can re-order them, and have the value without a default (the query parameter `q`) first.

    like:

    ```
    Authorization: Bearer deadbeef12346
    ```

    In this case:

    * `scheme` will have the value `"Bearer"`
    * `credentials` will have the value `"deadbeef12346"`
    """

    scheme: Annotated[
        str,
        Doc(
            """
            The HTTP authorization scheme extracted from the header value.

    # then two meshes must have different Mesh IDs:
    # - Meshes will have their telemetry aggregated in one place
    # - Meshes will be federated together
    # - Policy will be written referencing one mesh from the other
    #
    # If an administrator expects that any of these conditions may become true in
    # the future, they should ensure their meshes have different Mesh IDs
    # assigned.
    #