* fragile because they assume that only certain methods will be called and because they often
 * implement subtleties of the API improperly.
 *
 * <p><b>Custom implementation</b>: Avoid implementing {@code ListenableFuture} from scratch. If you
 * can't get by with the standard implementations, prefer to derive a new {@code Future} instance
 * with the methods in {@link Futures} or, if necessary, to extend {@link AbstractFuture}.
 *

 * fragile because they assume that only certain methods will be called and because they often
 * implement subtleties of the API improperly.
 *
 * <p><b>Custom implementation</b>: Avoid implementing {@code ListenableFuture} from scratch. If you
 * can't get by with the standard implementations, prefer to derive a new {@code Future} instance
 * with the methods in {@link Futures} or, if necessary, to extend {@link AbstractFuture}.
 *

		adminRouter.Methods(http.MethodGet).Path(adminVersion + "/tier").HandlerFunc(adminMiddleware(adminAPI.ListTierHandler))
		adminRouter.Methods(http.MethodDelete).Path(adminVersion + "/tier/{tier}").HandlerFunc(adminMiddleware(adminAPI.RemoveTierHandler))
		adminRouter.Methods(http.MethodGet).Path(adminVersion + "/tier/{tier}").HandlerFunc(adminMiddleware(adminAPI.VerifyTierHandler))
		// Tier stats

 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},
 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code

 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},
 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code

    implements RowSortedTable<R, C, V> {
  /*
   * TODO(jlevy): Consider adding headTable, tailTable, and subTable methods,
   * which return a Table view with rows keys in a given range. Create a
   * RowSortedTable subinterface with the revised methods?
   */

  StandardRowSortedTable(
      SortedMap<R, Map<C, V>> backingMap, Supplier<? extends Map<C, V>> factory) {
    super(backingMap, factory);

    // -----------/
    // - Methods -/
    // -----------/

    public MavenXpp3Writer() {
        this(false);
    }

    protected MavenXpp3Writer(boolean addLocationInformation) {
        delegate.setAddLocationInformation(addLocationInformation);
    }

    /**
     * Method setFileComment.
     *
     * @param fileComment a fileComment object.
     */

	"github.com/buger/jsonparser"
	"github.com/dustin/go-humanize"
	jwtgo "github.com/golang-jwt/jwt/v4"
	jsoniter "github.com/json-iterator/go"
)

// SigningMethodHMAC - Implements the HMAC-SHA family of signing methods signing methods
// Expects key type of []byte for both signing and validation
type SigningMethodHMAC struct {
	Name       string
	Hash       crypto.Hash
	HasherPool sync.Pool
}

 *
 * <p>{@code CharSource} provides two kinds of methods:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li><b>Methods that return a reader:</b> These methods should return a <i>new</i>, independent
 *       instance each time they are called. The caller is responsible for ensuring that the
 *       returned reader is closed.
 *   <li><b>Convenience methods:</b> These are implementations of common operations that are

 *       the {@code Converter} type using a mocking framework.
 *   <li>Extend this class and implement its {@link #doForward} and {@link #doBackward} methods.
 *   <li><b>Java 8+ users:</b> you may prefer to pass two lambda expressions or method references to
 *       the {@link #from from} factory method.
 * </ul>
 *
 * <p>Using a converter:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>Convert one instance in the "forward" direction using {@code converter.convert(a)}.