for details.

    The summary is that it ignores one file in favor of the other.
    util.concurrent, like nearly all our packages, has two .gwt.xml files: one
    for prod and one for tests. However, unlike our other packages, as of this
    writing it has test supersource but no prod supersource.

    GWT happens to use the prod .gwt.xml, so it looks for no supersource for

don't have to do anything. The specific rules are [already bundled][okhttp3_pro] into the JAR which can be
interpreted by R8 automatically.

If you, however, don't use R8 you have to apply the rules from [this file][okhttp3_pro]. You might
also need rules from [Okio][okio] which is a dependency of this library.

 * that it is not "API-frozen."
 *
 * <p>It is generally safe for <i>applications</i> to depend on beta APIs, at the cost of some extra
 * work during upgrades. However it is generally inadvisable for <i>libraries</i> (which get
 * included on users' CLASSPATHs, outside the library developers' control) to do so.
 *
 * @author Kevin Bourrillion
 */
@Retention(RetentionPolicy.CLASS)

    for details.

    The summary is that it ignores one file in favor of the other.
    util.concurrent, like nearly all our packages, has two .gwt.xml files: one
    for prod and one for tests. However, unlike our other packages, as of this
    writing it has test supersource but no prod supersource.

    GWT happens to use the prod .gwt.xml, so it looks for no supersource for

    for details.

    The summary is that it ignores one file in favor of the other.
    util.concurrent, like nearly all our packages, has two .gwt.xml files: one
    for prod and one for tests. However, unlike our other packages, as of this
    writing it has test supersource but no prod supersource.

    GWT happens to use the prod .gwt.xml, so it looks for no supersource for

 * that it is not "API-frozen."
 *
 * <p>It is generally safe for <i>applications</i> to depend on beta APIs, at the cost of some extra
 * work during upgrades. However it is generally inadvisable for <i>libraries</i> (which get
 * included on users' CLASSPATHs, outside the library developers' control) to do so.
 *
 * @author Kevin Bourrillion
 */
@Retention(RetentionPolicy.CLASS)

       *
       * My impression is that an AtomicReferenceFieldUpdater in a static field is similarly fast to
       * Unsafe on modern JVMs (if perhaps not quite as fast as VarHandle?). However, I'm not sure
       * exactly what we've benchmarked, and we certainly haven't benchmarked as far back as JDK 8.
       * (We also haven't benchmarked under Android. We continue to use UnsafeAtomicHelper there so

 * or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under
 * the License.
 */

package com.google.common.base;

import org.jspecify.annotations.Nullable;

/** Holder for extra methods of {@code Objects} only in web. */
public abstract class ExtraObjectsMethodsForWeb {
  public static boolean equal(@Nullable String a, @Nullable String b) {
    return a == b;
  }

 * } else {
 *   // do other things since the monitor was not available
 * }
 * }
 *
 * <h2>Comparison with {@code synchronized} and {@code ReentrantLock}</h2>
 *
 * <p>The following examples show a simple threadsafe holder expressed using {@code synchronized},
 * {@link ReentrantLock}, and {@code Monitor}.
 *
 * <h3>{@code synchronized}</h3>
 *
 * <p>This version is the fewest lines of code, largely because the synchronization mechanism used

 * }
 * }
 *
 * @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