* Executor#execute execute}, as in {@link CallerRunsPolicy}.
   *
   * <p>This executor is appropriate for tasks that are lightweight and not deeply chained.
   * Inappropriate {@code directExecutor} usage can cause problems, and these problems can be
   * difficult to reproduce because they depend on timing. For example:
   *
   * <ul>
   *   <li>When a {@code ListenableFuture} listener is registered to run under {@code

errors.login.failure = Inloggen mislukt.
errors.app.illegal.transition = Illegale overgang. Probeer het opnieuw.
errors.app.db.already.deleted = Mogelijk is het al verwijderd door een ander proces. Probeer de bewerking opnieuw.
errors.app.db.already.updated = Mogelijk is het al bijgewerkt door een ander proces. Probeer de bewerking opnieuw.
errors.app.db.already.exists = Gegevens bestaan al. Probeer de bewerking opnieuw.

    }

    /**
     * Executes the crawler process in a separate JVM.
     * This method constructs the command line arguments, sets up the classpath,
     * and launches the crawler as an external process. It handles process lifecycle,
     * monitors output, and ensures proper cleanup.
     *
     * @throws JobProcessingException if the crawler process fails or times out
     */
    protected void executeCrawler() {

        } catch (final IOException e) {
            throw new JobProcessingException("Crawler Process terminated.", e);
        }
    }

    /**
     * Destroys the process associated with the given session ID.
     *
     * @param sessionId unique identifier for the process session
     * @return exit code of the destroyed process, or -1 if the process was not found
     */

</source>

<!--
    We used to set this only for packages that had manual supersource. That
    worked everywhere that I know of except for one place: when running the GWT
    util.concurrent tests under Guava.

    The problem is that GWT responds poorly to two .gwt.xml files in the same
    Java package; see
    https://groups.google.com/g/google-web-toolkit-contributors/c/CqYH59Dt_rQ/m/uVGW1QdUsXUJ
    for details.

</source>

<!--
    We used to set this only for packages that had manual supersource. That
    worked everywhere that I know of except for one place: when running the GWT
    util.concurrent tests under Guava.

    The problem is that GWT responds poorly to two .gwt.xml files in the same
    Java package; see
    https://groups.google.com/g/google-web-toolkit-contributors/c/CqYH59Dt_rQ/m/uVGW1QdUsXUJ
    for details.

</source>

<!--
    We used to set this only for packages that had manual supersource. That
    worked everywhere that I know of except for one place: when running the GWT
    util.concurrent tests under Guava.

    The problem is that GWT responds poorly to two .gwt.xml files in the same
    Java package; see
    https://groups.google.com/g/google-web-toolkit-contributors/c/CqYH59Dt_rQ/m/uVGW1QdUsXUJ
    for details.

</source>

<!--
    We used to set this only for packages that had manual supersource. That
    worked everywhere that I know of except for one place: when running the GWT
    util.concurrent tests under Guava.

    The problem is that GWT responds poorly to two .gwt.xml files in the same
    Java package; see
    https://groups.google.com/g/google-web-toolkit-contributors/c/CqYH59Dt_rQ/m/uVGW1QdUsXUJ
    for details.

</source>

<!--
    We used to set this only for packages that had manual supersource. That
    worked everywhere that I know of except for one place: when running the GWT
    util.concurrent tests under Guava.

    The problem is that GWT responds poorly to two .gwt.xml files in the same
    Java package; see
    https://groups.google.com/g/google-web-toolkit-contributors/c/CqYH59Dt_rQ/m/uVGW1QdUsXUJ
    for details.

          <offlineLinks>
            <!-- We need local copies of some of these for 2 reasons: a User-Agent problem (https://stackoverflow.com/a/47891403/28465) and an SSL problem (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MJAVADOC-507). If we choose to work around the User-Agent problem, we can go back to <links>, sidestepping the SSL problem. -->
            <offlineLink>