* a file or directory that would be more accessible.
 */
@J2ktIncompatible
@GwtIncompatible
@J2ObjCIncompatible
abstract class TempFileCreator {
  static final TempFileCreator INSTANCE = pickSecureCreator();

  /**
   * @throws IllegalStateException if the directory could not be created (to implement the contract

It would also mean that if you get data from the `Request` object directly (for example, read the body) it won't be validated, converted or documented (with OpenAPI, for the automatic API user interface) by FastAPI.

Although any other parameter declared normally (for example, the body with a Pydantic model) would still be validated, converted, annotated, etc.

    }

    @Override
    protected long getBufferAddress(ByteBuffer buffer) {
        // In real implementation, this would get the native memory address:
        // For direct ByteBuffers, this could be obtained through unsafe operations
        // or DiSNI-specific methods

        if (buffer.isDirect()) {
            // Assign a unique address to each buffer instance

So, you could add additional data to the automatically generated schema.

For example, you could decide to read and validate the request with your own code, without using the automatic features of FastAPI with Pydantic, but you could still want to define the request in the OpenAPI schema.

You could do that with `openapi_extra`:

  - type: input
    id: package-path
    attributes:
      label: "What is the path of the package that you would like to have removed?"
      description: |
        We can remove packages with a shared path prefix.
        For example, a request for 'github.com/author' would remove all pkg.go.dev pages with that package path prefix.
    validations:
      required: true
  - type: textarea
    id: package-owner

The OpenAPI schema is what powers the two interactive documentation systems included.

And there are dozens of alternatives, all based on OpenAPI. You could easily add any of those alternatives to your application built with **FastAPI**.

You could also use it to generate code automatically, for clients that communicate with your API. For example, frontend, mobile or IoT applications.

  //   system scheduling and as such we could either miss our deadline, or unpark() could be delayed
  //   so that it looks like we timed out even though we didn't. For comparison FutureTask respects
  //   completion preferably and AQS is non-deterministic (depends on where in the queue the waiter
  //   is). If we wanted to be strict about it, we could store the unpark() time in the Waiter node

 * }
 * }
 *
 * @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
 * support even a "normal" `TypeParameter<T>` when `<T>` has a nullable bound. (See the discussion

   * worker runs and exhausts the queue, another thread enqueues a task and fails to schedule the
   * worker, and then the first thread's call to delegate.execute() returns. Without this counter,
   * it would observe the QUEUING state and set it to QUEUED, and the worker would never be
   * scheduled again for future submissions.
   */
  @GuardedBy("queue")
  private long workerRunCount = 0;

  @RetainedWith private final QueueWorker worker = new QueueWorker();

 * }
 * }
 *
 * @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
 * support even a "normal" `TypeParameter<T>` when `<T>` has a nullable bound. (See the discussion