* 2b. If the resolved types are different from the original types, things are trickier. The
         * only way to get a TypeVariable instance for the resolved types is to create our own. The
         * created TypeVariable will not interoperate with any JDK TypeVariable. But this is OK: We
         * don't _want_ our new TypeVariable to be equal to the JDK TypeVariable because it has

the identity of a server. The converse is also possible. Here we create a server that authenticates
a client and a client that authenticates a server.

```java
// Create the root for client and server to trust. We could also use different roots for each!
HeldCertificate rootCertificate = new HeldCertificate.Builder()
    .certificateAuthority(0)
    .build();

// Create a server certificate and a server that uses it.

       * timeoutFuture can be set (and delegate cancelled) only once. (And "set only once" is
       * important for other reasons: run() can still be invoked concurrently in different threads,
       * even with the above null checks.)
       */
      timeoutFutureRef = null;
      if (delegate.isDone()) {
        timeoutFuture.setFuture(delegate);
      } else {
        try {

	for _, len := range lengths {
		// randomish but deterministic data. No 0 or 255.
		for i := 0; i < len; i++ {
			a[i] = byte(1 + 31*i%254)
			b[i] = byte(1 + 31*i%254)
		}
		// data past the end is different
		for i := len; i <= n; i++ {
			a[i] = 8
			b[i] = 9
		}
		cmp := Compare(a[:len], b[:len])
		if cmp != 0 {
			t.Errorf(`CompareIdentical(%d) = %d`, len, cmp)
		}
		if len > 0 {

            assertEquals(expectedCause, e.getCause());
        }
    }

    public void test_multipleExceptions_differentStatusCodes() {
        // Test creating multiple exceptions with different status codes
        WebApiException exception1 = new WebApiException(400, "Bad Request");
        WebApiException exception2 = new WebApiException(401, "Unauthorized");

        community can discuss and debate whether this feature is actually the *best* way to address
        the real use case, or whether or not a different abstraction might be more appropriate.


        It's okay if you can't provide complete context on a use case. We understand if you are not
        able to discuss the full details of what you're working on.

    char[] charsB = new char[128];

    for (int i = 0; i < charsA.length; i++) {
      if (i < 100) {
        charsA[i] = 'a';
        charsB[i] = 'a';
      } else {
        // Both two-byte characters, but must be different
        charsA[i] = (char) (0x0180 + i);
        charsB[i] = (char) (0x0280 + i);
      }
    }

    String stringA = new String(charsA);
    String stringB = new String(charsB);

   * generalized escaping for characters.
   *
   * <p>Note that arrays returned by this method must not be modified once they have been returned.
   * However it is acceptable to return the same array multiple times (even for different input
   * characters).
   *
   * @param c the character to escape
   * @return the replacement characters, or {@code null} if no escaping was required
   */

            assertEquals(Integer.MAX_VALUE, SMBUtil.readInt4(buffer, 32));
            assertEquals(Integer.MAX_VALUE, SMBUtil.readInt4(buffer, 40));
        }

        @Test
        @DisplayName("Should write at different buffer positions")
        void testWriteAtDifferentPositions() {
            request.setReadLength(2048);
            request.setOffset(4096L);

            byte[] buffer = new byte[512];

<h2 id="introduction">Introduction</h2>

<p>
The Go memory model specifies the conditions under which
reads of a variable in one goroutine can be guaranteed to
observe values produced by writes to the same variable in a different goroutine.
</p>


<h3 id="advice">Advice</h3>

<p>
Programs that modify data being simultaneously accessed by multiple goroutines
must serialize such access.
</p>

<p>