if reflect.DeepEqual(cep, ep) {
					return i
				}
			}
		}
	}
	return -1
}

// Legacy returns 'true' if the MinIO server commandline was
// provided with no ellipses pattern, those are considered
// legacy deployments.
func (l EndpointServerPools) Legacy() bool {
	return len(l) == 1 && l[0].Legacy
}

// Add add pool endpoints

        }

        @Test
        @DisplayName("Should handle mismatched chunk and total bytes")
        void testMismatchedValues() throws SMBProtocolDecodingException {
            // This could happen if the last chunk is smaller
            byte[] buffer = createValidCopyChunkResponse(10, // 10 chunks
                    65536, // Last chunk size (not average)
                    589824 // Total less than 10 * 65536

   * satisfied, it does *not* need to call this method before returning to wait. This can only
   * happen due to spurious wakeup (ignorable) or another thread acquiring the lock before the
   * current thread can and returning the guard to the unsatisfied state. In the latter case the
   * other thread (last thread modifying the state protected by the monitor) takes over the

 *       deadlock situation, and the appropriate Policy is executed.
 * </ul>
 *
 * <p>Note that detection of potential deadlock does not necessarily indicate that deadlock will
 * happen, as it is possible that higher level application logic prevents the cyclic lock
 * acquisition from occurring. One example of a false positive is:
 *
 * <pre>
 * LockA -&gt; LockB -&gt; LockC

If you check the previous app, in the UI you can see that, up to now, it lets the client decide the `id` of the `Hero` to create. 😱

We shouldn't let that happen, they could overwrite an `id` we already have assigned in the DB. Deciding the `id` should be done by the **backend** or the **database**, **not by the client**.

 *
 * @since 4.0.0
 */
@Experimental
@Immutable
public interface DependencyResolverRequest extends Request<Session> {

    enum RequestType {
        COLLECT,
        FLATTEN,
        RESOLVE
    }

    @Nonnull
    RequestType getRequestType();

    @Nonnull
    Optional<Project> getProject();

    @Nonnull
    Optional<Artifact> getRootArtifact();

    @Nonnull

            baos.write(channel.getRemoteInterface().getAddress().getAddress());
            baos.write(ByteBuffer.allocate(8).putLong(System.currentTimeMillis()).array());
        } catch (IOException e) {
            // Should not happen with ByteArrayOutputStream
            log.error("Error creating binding info", e);
        }

        return baos.toByteArray();
    }

    assertThat(client.connectionPool.connectionCount()).isEqualTo(1)
  }

  /**
   * This is an extraordinary test case. Here's what it's trying to simulate.
   * - 2 requests happen concurrently to a host that can be coalesced onto a single connection.
   * - Both request discover no existing connection. They both make a connection.
   * - The first request "wins the race".

func splitZipExtensionPath(input string) (zipPath, object string, err error) {
	idx := strings.Index(input, archivePattern)
	if idx < 0 {
		// Should never happen
		return "", "", errors.New("unable to parse zip path")
	}
	return input[:idx+len(archivePattern)-1], input[idx+len(archivePattern):], nil
}

// getObjectInArchiveFileHandler - GET Object in the archive file

In diesem Fall wäre es besser, **einen zusätzlichen Server** zu besorgen und einige Prozesse darauf auszuführen, damit alle über **genug RAM und CPU-Zeit** verfügen.