First of all, I know the difference between the two methods.
Optional.of : Used to ensure that there is no null, if null is entered, nullPointExcepction
Optional.ofNullable : may or may not be null. Used to respond flexibly.
So, if I add orElseThrow(() -> new NullPointerException("null data")) to this, will it end up being the same?
I want to throw an error with explicit content.
So I get Optional.ofNullable(data).orElseThrow(() -> new NullPointerException("null data")))
use it as Is this pointless behaviour?
Optional.of(data).orElseThrow(() -> new NullPointerException("null data")))
I think this is also possible, but I'm just using ofNullable() to make the code look consistent.
to sum it up,
In the end, if you add orElseThrow(nullPoint)
Are of or ofNullable the same result?
then rather
Is of.orElseThrow better?
to sum it up, In the end, if you add orElseThrow(nullPoint) Are of or ofNullable the same result?
No. To see this, simply look at the types.
public static <T> Optional<T> of(T value);
public <X extends Throwable> T orElseThrow(Supplier<? extends X> exceptionSupplier)
throws X extends Throwable;
Optional.of returns an Optional<T>, where orElseThrow is going to leave you with a T. So Optional.ofNullable(x).orElseThrow(...) is really just a very roundabout
if (x == null) {
throw new NullPointerException(...);
}
You're not actually doing anything with the Optional, just making one and discarding it in a really verbose way. So if that's your intent, just do an explicit null check; there's no need at all for Optional.
Which raises the question of why we would use of or ofNullable. With the introduction of Optional, there are now two ways to represent the concept of "this value might not exist" in Java: null and Optional.empty(). People on the Internet will argue till the end of time about which is better and when you should use which one (I have strong opinions on this which I'll refrain from sharing here, since it's not what you asked), but the point is that there are two different ways to do it.
For the rest of this post, I'll borrow a bit of notation from Kotlin and write T? to mean "a T value which might be null". It's not valid Java notation, but it gets the point across. So if we want to represent "A T which may or may not exist" in Java, we can use either Optional<T> or T?.
If we want to go from T? to Optional<T>, that's what Optional.ofNullable is for. It says "If the thing is null, give me Optional.empty(); otherwise give me the thing in an Optional". To go the other way, we can use Optional.orElse(null), which says "If I have a T, give it to me, otherwise show me null". So now we have a way to convert between the two approaches. So what's Optional.of for?
You should view Optional.of as an assertion of sorts. If Java had nullable types like Kotlin, then the difference would be something like
public static <T> Optional<T> of(T value);
public static <T> Optional<T> ofNullable(T? value);
That is, ofNullable expects that its value might be null. of is already assuming that it's not. Optional.of should be thought of an assertion that the value you're giving it is not null. If that assertion fails, we throw NullPointerException immediately rather than letting errors propagate to other parts of the program. If you're calling Optional.of and recovering from the NullPointerException it throws[1], then you are doing something very wrong. That function is an assertion we were dealing with non-null data to begin with, and if that assertion fails then your program should fail immediately with a good stack trace.
It sounds like, based on your use case, you have a value that might be null. In that case, Optional.ofNullable makes sense; it's prepared to handle the use case. If you want to throw a custom exception, you should do a null check beforehand (since you're the one handling the null, not Optional) and then call Optional.of. Or, of course, you can just do an old-fashioned null check and not use Optional at all, if you're planning to extract it anyway with orElseThrow. Certainly, the pipeline Optional.ofNullable(value).orElseThrow(...) in one line would be a code smell.
[1] Note that I say "recovering from", not "catching". A nice top-level catch (Exception exc) which logs all errors is perfectly acceptable and generally a good idea in larger applications. But if you're doing catch (NullPointerException exc) { return 0; } or something like that then you need to reconsider which Optional method you should be using.
First of all, I know the difference between the two methods.
Optional.of : Used to ensure that there is no null, if null is
entered, nullPointExcepction
Optional.ofNullable : may or may not be null. Used to respond
flexibly.
There's a clear point of misunderstanding.
The purpose of Optional.of() is not "to ensure that there is no null". It is not meant to be used as an assertion that a value that was passed into it is non-null. For such a validation you can use Objects.requireNonNull(), it'll either throw an NPE, or will return you a non-null value.
In order to be on the same page, the first important thing you have to keep in mind is that optionals were introduced in the JDK for only one particular purpose - to serve as a return type. Any other cases when optional is utilized as a parameter-type, or a field-type, or when optional objects are being stored in a collection isn't considered to be a good practice. As well, as creating an optional just in order to chain methods on it or to hide a null-check is considered to be an antipattern.
Here is a couple of quotes from the answer by #StuartMarks, developer of the JDK:
The primary use of Optional is as follows:
Optional is intended to
provide a limited mechanism for library method return types where
there is a clear need to represent "no result," and where using null
for that is overwhelmingly likely to cause errors.
A typical code smell is, instead of the code using method chaining to
handle an Optional returned from some method, it creates an Optional
from something that's nullable, in order to chain methods and avoid
conditionals.
I also suggest you to have a look at this answer to the question "Should Optional.ofNullable() be used for null check?", also by Stuart Marks.
With all that being said, combination Optional.of().orElseThrow() is both wrong and pointless:
If provided data is null method of() will raise an NPE and orElseThrow() will not be executed (i.e. its exception will get never be fired).
You're abusing the optional by creating an optional object not in order to return a nullable variable wrapped by it, but to hide the null-check (take a look at the quote above). That obscures the purpose of your code. You can use Objects.requireNonNull() instead to throw an exception if the given value must not be null or requireNonNullElse() to provide a default value.
For the same reason, you shouldn't use Optional.ofNullable().orElseThrow() at the first place.
Optional is like a Box
You might think of optional is if it is a parcel. When you need to send something, you go to the post office (i.e. returning from the method), where the thing that has to be sent is being placed into a box. When somebody (i.e. the caller) receives the parcel, it is being immediately unpacked. That is the whole lifecycle of the box called Optional.
When, according to the logic of your application, an object required to be returned from the method should not be null - use Optional.of(). It'll either send a parcel successfully or will emphasize that there's a problem by raising a NullPointerException.
If the given object is nullable by its nature, i.e. null isn't an abnormal case, then use Optional.ofNullable(), it'll fire either a box containing the object or an empty box.
And the caller (i.e. method that invokes the method returning an optional) is the one who has to unpack the box using a variety of tools that optional provides like orElseThrow(), orElseGet(), ifPresent(), etc.
So I have a constructor with 5 different variables, where three of which might be null. It accepts user input and the user does not have to enter anything for three of the five attributes.
Therefore, if the user did not enter anything, the object is created using null for all missing values.
obj = new Object(String, null, null, null, String);
Now I am wondering what would be best practice to cope with this.
I can think of three different scenarios:
Deal with it only in the class using the constructor, i.e. always query whether the value is null (e.g. if(getSomeAttribute == null) { //do something }
Deal with it within the object class, i.e. always return some default value for each missing attribute instead of null
Deal with it within the object lcass, i.e. have helper-methods like isAttributeSet(), returning a boolean value indicating whether the attributes are set, that is: not null.
Although I have problems with the last two, as I think I might run into problems with default values, as sometimes it might hard to know if it is a default value; if I'd always check I could just as well check for null instead of inserting a default value first;
Same with the last one, if I have to check the helper-method, I could just as well check for null directly.
What my problem is with this situation, is that sometimes I might not be the one using the getter and setter methods; how should the one using it know there might be null attributes and which that are.
I know, I should document that within my object class, but still I am wondering if there is a "best practice" way to cope with this.
I believe it should be unusual to always check the documentary (or if there is none, the whole class) for something as simple as this.
Maybe I should not even start with null values within my constructor in the first place? But I think I would run into the same kinds of problems, anyway, so that would not really solve my problem
Read Bloch, Effective Java, 2nd ed. Item 2: "Consider a builder when faced with many constructor parameters."
Excellent advice in an excellent book.
Using a builder pattern would help with the constructor, however the main problem is to do with the design of the class - you want to be sure when you call a get/set method that it isn't one of the null/optional members.
You could use polymorphism to have two objects each with an interface that only exposes the getters and setters supported by the concrete implementation. This makes it impossible to call the wrong getters/setters and it is obvious what the intention is.
If I have a class like
class A
{
Private B b;
X getX()
{
X x = b.newClient().call();
}
}
Here should I be checking if b is null ? How should this be handled ? Using exceptions (for e.g. this isnt really an argument so does throwing an illegalArgument make sense here ? or simply logging an error ?
private B b is part of your hidden, internal implementation (i.e. It's not part of the public API, used by clients of your class). So it's not a client's problem that b is null, it's your problem, as the developer of the class.
Imagine if you were trying to use some shiny new library you got off GitHub:
MagicAnythingParser parser = new MagicAnythingParser();
parser.parse(myDocument);
and the call to parse threw an exception that said "intakeManifold is null". You'd be thinking "What the hell?!"
Little did you know, that you were expected to first make a call like:
parser.setupParseRules(someRuleset);
and internally, this created some object and assigned it to intakeManifold.
A much better scenario would be, if MagicAnythingParser did a good job of tracking its internal state, and instead threw something like an IllegelStateException("No parse rules applied. You must call setupParseRules first.")
My whole point is, you should develop the public API of your classes, with the clients in mind (even if that client is you.) Try to ensure that your objects are always in a "good state" - and when you cannot, throw meaningful exceptions, that make it blindingly obvious what the problem was.
Do you have a strategy for handling the possibility of a null pointer? I.e. if the variable should NEVER be null, and therefore indicates a bug, then you might not want to hide it. I'm a fan of letting the system blow up in my face so that the fault is found quickly and the root cause determined easily.
If your code is designed to carry on anyway, for example when processing batches and you don't want one fault in a batch item to kill the whole batch, then you can log it or whatever. But otherwise just let the NPE do it's thing.
Checking if b is null in getX does not buy you much. You are trading one runtime exception for another. You really want to know why b is null.
I would recommend making b final and setting it through the constructor. Perform your null check in the constructor.
Is it a bad practice to pass NULL argument to methods or in other words should we have method definitions which allow NULL argument as valid argument.
Suppose i want two method
1. to retrieve list of all of companies
2. to retrieve list of companies based upon filter.
We can either have two methods like as below
List<Company> getAllCompaniesList();
List<Company> getCompaniesList(Company companyFilter);
or we can have one single method
List<Company> getCompaniesList(Company companyFilter);
here in second case, if argument is NULL then method return list of all of companies.
Beside question of good practice practically i see one more issue with later approach which is explained below.
I am implementing Spring AOP, in which i want to have some checks on arguments like
1. Is argument NULL ?
2. is size of collection 0?
There are some scenarios where we can not have null argument at all like for method
void addBranches(int companyId, List<Branch>);
This check can be performed very well by using Spring AOP by defining method like following
#Before(argNames="args", value="execution(* *)")
void beforeCall(JoinPoint joinPoint ,Object[] args )
{
foreach(Object obj in args)
{
if(obj == NULL)
{
throw new Exception("Argument NULL");
}
}
}
But problem i am facing is since i have defined some of methods which should accept NULL argument for multiple functionality of one single method as mentioned above for method List getCompaniesList(Company companyFilter);
So i can not apply AOP uniformly for all of methods and neither some expression for methods name match will be useful here.
Please let me know if more information is required or problem is not descriptive enough.
Thanks for reading my problem and giving thought upon it.
It's fine, in cases when there are too many overloaded methods. So instead of having all combinations of parameters, you allow some of them to be null. But if you do so, document this explicitly with
#param foo foo description. Can be null
In your case I'd have the two methods, where the first one invokes the second with a null argument. It makes the API more usable.
There is no strict line where to stop overloading and where to start relying on nullable parameters. It's a matter of preference. But note that thus your method with the most params will allow some of them to be nullable, so document this as well.
Also note that a preferred way to cope with multiple constructor parameters is via a Builder. So instead of:
public Foo(String bar, String baz, int fooo, double barr, String asd);
where each of the arguments is optional, you can have:
Foo foo = new FooBuilder().setBar(bar).setFooo(fooo).build();
I use a very simple rule:
Never allow null as an argument or return value on a public method.
I make use of Optional and Preconditions or AOP to enforce that rule.
This decision already saved me tons of hours bugfixing after NPE's or strange behaviour.
It's common practice, but there are ways of making your code clearer - avoiding null checks in sometimes, or moving them elsewhere. Look up the null object pattern - it may well be exactly what you need: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_Object_pattern?wasRedirected=true
The rule is: simple interface, complicated implementation.
Design decisions about your API should be made by considering how the client code is likely to use it. If you expect to see either
getAllCompaniesList(null);
or
if (companyFilter == null) {
getAllCompaniesList();
} else {
getAllCompaniesList(companyFilter);
}
then you're doing it wrong. If the likely use-case is that the client code will, at the time it is written, either have or not have a filter, you should supply two entry points; if that decision is likely not made until run-time, allow a null argument.
Another approach that may be workable may be to have a CompanyFilter interface with an companyIsIncluded(Company) method that accepts a Company and returns true or false to say whether any company should be included. Company could implement the interface so that companyIsIncluded method's behavior mirrored equals(), but one could easily have a singleton CompanyFilter.AllCompanies whose companyIsIncluded() method would always return true. Using that approach, there's no need to pass a null value--just pass a reference to the AllComapnies singleton.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I am using java language,I have a method that is supposed to return an object if it is found.
If it is not found, should I:
return null
throw an exception
other
Which is the best practise or idiom?
If you are always expecting to find a value then throw the exception if it is missing. The exception would mean that there was a problem.
If the value can be missing or present and both are valid for the application logic then return a null.
More important: What do you do other places in the code? Consistency is important.
Only throw an exception if it is truly an error. If it is expected behavior for the object to not exist, return the null.
Otherwise it is a matter of preference.
As a general rule, if the method should always return an object, then go with the exception. If you anticipate the occasional null and want to handle it in a certain way, go with the null.
Whatever you do, I highly advise against the third option: Returning a string that says "WTF".
If null never indicates an error then just return null.
If null is always an error then throw an exception.
If null is sometimes an exception then code two routines. One routine throws an exception and the other is a boolean test routine that returns the object in an output parameter and the routine returns a false if the object was not found.
It's hard to misuse a Try routine. It's real easy to forget to check for null.
So when null is an error you just write
object o = FindObject();
When the null isn't an error you can code something like
if (TryFindObject(out object o)
// Do something with o
else
// o was not found
I just wanted to recapitulate the options mentioned before, throwing some new ones in:
return null
throw an Exception
use the null object pattern
provide a boolean parameter to you method, so the caller can chose if he wants you to throw an exception
provide an extra parameter, so the caller can set a value which he gets back if no value is found
Or you might combine these options:
Provide several overloaded versions of your getter, so the caller can decide which way to go. In most cases, only the first one has an implementation of the search algorithm, and the other ones just wrap around the first one:
Object findObjectOrNull(String key);
Object findObjectOrThrow(String key) throws SomeException;
Object findObjectOrCreate(String key, SomeClass dataNeededToCreateNewObject);
Object findObjectOrDefault(String key, Object defaultReturnValue);
Even if you choose to provide only one implementation, you might want to use a naming convention like that to clarify your contract, and it helps you should you ever decide to add other implementations as well.
You should not overuse it, but it may be helpfull, espeacially when writing a helper Class which you will use in hundreds of different applications with many different error handling conventions.
Use the null object pattern or throw an exception.
Advantages of throwing an exception:
Cleaner control flow in your calling code. Checking for null injects a conditional branch which is natively handled by try/catch. Checking for null doesn't indicate what it is you're checking for - are you checking for null because you're looking for an error you're expecting, or are you checking for null so you don't pass it further on downchain?
Removes ambiguity of what "null" means. Is null representative of an error or is null what is actually stored in the value? Hard to say when you only have one thing to base that determination off of.
Improved consistency between method behavior in an application. Exceptions are typically exposed in method signatures, so you're more able to understand what edge cases the methods in an application account for, and what information your application can react to in a predictable manner.
For more explanation with examples, see: http://metatations.com/2011/11/17/returning-null-vs-throwing-an-exception/
Be consistent with the API(s) you're using.
Just ask yourself: "is it an exceptional case that the object is not found"? If it is expected to happen in the normal course of your program, you probably should not raise an exception (since it is not exceptional behavior).
Short version: use exceptions to handle exceptional behavior, not to handle normal flow of control in your program.
-Alan.
it depends if your language and code promotes:
LBYL (look before you leap)
or
EAFP (easier to ask forgiveness than permission)
LBYL says you should check for values (so return a null)
EAFP says to just try the operation and see if it fails (throw an exception)
though I agree with above.. exceptions should be used for exceptional/error conditions, and returning a null is best when using checks.
EAFP vs. LBYL in Python:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2003-May/205182.html
(Web Archive)
Exceptions are related to Design by Contract.
The interface of an objects is actually a contract between two objects, the caller must meet the contract or else the receiver may just fail with an exception. There are two possible contracts
1) all input the method is valid, in which case you must return null when the object is not found.
2) only some input is valid, ie that which results in a found object. In which case you MUST offer a second method that allows the caller to determine if its input will be correct. For example
is_present(key)
find(key) throws Exception
IF and ONLY IF you provide both methods of the 2nd contract, you are allowed to throw an exception is nothing is found!
I prefer to just return a null, and rely on the caller to handle it appropriately. The (for lack of a better word) exception is if I am absolutely 'certain' this method will return an object. In that case a failure is an exceptional should and should throw.
Depends on what it means that the object is not found.
If it's a normal state of affairs, then return null. This is just something that might happen once in an while, and the callers should check for it.
If it's an error, then throw an exception, the callers should decide what to do with the error condition of missing object.
Ultimately either would work, although most people generally consider it good practice to only use Exceptions when something, well, Exceptional has happened.
Here are a couple more suggestions.
If returning a collection, avoid returning null, return an empty collection which makes enumeration easier to deal with without a null check first.
Several .NET API's use the pattern of a thrownOnError parameter which gives the caller the choice as whether it is really an exceptional situation or not if the object is not found. Type.GetType is an example of this. Another common pattern with BCL is the TryGet pattern where a boolean is returned and the value is passed via an output parameter.
You could also consider the Null Object pattern in some circumstances which can either be a default or a version with no behaviour. The key is avoid null checks throughout the code base. See here for more information Link
In some functions I add a parameter:
..., bool verify = true)
True means throw, false means return some error return value. This way, whoever uses this function has both options. The default should be true, for the benefit of those who forget about error handling.
Return a null instead of throwing an exception and clearly document the possibility of a null return value in the API documentation. If the calling code doesn't honor the API and check for the null case, it will most probably result in some sort of "null pointer exception" anyway :)
In C++, I can think of 3 different flavors of setting up a method that finds an object.
Option A
Object *findObject(Key &key);
Return null when an object can't be found. Nice and simple. I'd go with this one. The alternative approaches below are for people who don't hate out-params.
Option B
void findObject(Key &key, Object &found);
Pass in a reference to variable that will be receiving the object. The method thrown an exception when an object can't be found. This convention is probably more suitable if it's not really expected for an object not to be found -- hence you throw an exception to signify that it's an unexpected case.
Option C
bool findObject(Key &key, Object &found);
The method returns false when an object can't be found. The advantage of this over option A is that you can check for the error case in one clear step:
if (!findObject(myKey, myObj)) { ...
referring only to the case where null is not considered an exceptional behavior i am definitely for the try method, it is clear, no need to "read the book" or "look before you leap" as was said here
so basically:
bool TryFindObject(RequestParam request, out ResponseParam response)
and this means that the user's code will also be clear
...
if(TryFindObject(request, out response)
{
handleSuccess(response)
}
else
{
handleFailure()
}
...
If it's important for client code to know the difference between found and not found and this is supposed to be a routine behavior, then it's best to return null. Client code can then decide what to do.
Generally it should return null. The code calling the method should decide whether to throw an exception or to attempt something else.
Or return an Option
An option is basically a container class that forces the client to handle booth cases. Scala has this concept, look up it's API.
Then you have methods like T getOrElse(T valueIfNull) on this object thet either return the found object, or an allternative the client specifieces.
Prefer returning null --
If the caller uses it without checking, the exception happens right there anyway.
If the caller doesn't really use it, don't tax him a try/catch block
Unfortunately JDK is inconsistent, if you trying access non existing key in resource bundle, you get not found exception and when you request value from map you get null if it doesn't exists. So I would change winner answer to the following, if found value can be null, then raise exception when it isn't found, otherwise return null. So follow to the rule with one exception, if you need to know why value isn't found then always raise exception, or..
If the method returns a collection, then return an empty collection (like sayed above). But please not Collections.EMPTY_LIST or such! (in case of Java)
If the method retrives a single object, then You have some options.
If the method should always find the result and it's a real exception case not to find the object, then you should throw an exception (in Java: please an unchecked Exception)
(Java only) If you can tolerate that the method throws a checked exception, throw a project specific ObjectNotFoundException or the like. In this case the compiler says you if you forget to handle the exception. (This is my preferred handling of not found things in Java.)
If you say it's really ok, if the object is not found and your Method name is like findBookForAuthorOrReturnNull(..), then you can return null. In this case it is strongly recomminded to use some sort of static check or compiler check, wich prevents dereferencing of the result without a null check. In case of Java it can be eg. FindBugs (see DefaultAnnotation at http://findbugs.sourceforge.net/manual/annotations.html) or IntelliJ-Checking.
Be careful, if you decide to return a null. If you are not the only programmer in project you will get NullPointerExceptions (in Java or whatever in other Languages) at run time! So don't return nulls which are not checked at compile time.
As long as it's supposed to return a reference to the object, returning a NULL should be good.
However, if it's returning the whole bloody thing (like in C++ if you do: 'return blah;' rather than 'return &blah;' (or 'blah' is a pointer), then you can't return a NULL, because it's not of type 'object'. In that case, throwing an exception, or returning a blank object that doesn't have a success flag set is how I would approach the problem.
Don't think anyone mentioned the overhead in exception handling - takes additional resources to load up and process the exception so unless its a true app killing or process stopping event (going forward would cause more harm than good) I would opt for passing back a value the calling environment could interpret as it sees fit.
I agree with what seems to be the consensus here (return null if "not found" is a normal possible outcome, or throw an exception if the semantics of the situation require that the object always be found).
There is, however, a third possibility that might make sense depending on your particular situation. Your method could return a default object of some sort in the "not found" condition, allowing calling code to be assured that it will always receive a valid object without the need for null checking or exception catching.
Return a null, exceptions are exactly that: something your code does that isn't expected.
Exceptions should be exceptional. Return null if it is valid to return a null.
If you are using a library or another class which throws an exception, you should rethrow it. Here is an example. Example2.java is like library and Example.java uses it's object. Main.java is an example to handle this Exception. You should show a meaningful message and (if needed) stack trace to the user in the calling side.
Main.java
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Example example = new Example();
try {
Example2 obj = example.doExample();
if(obj == null){
System.out.println("Hey object is null!");
}
} catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println("Congratulations, you caught the exception!");
System.out.println("Here is stack trace:");
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
Example.java
/**
* Example.java
* #author Seval
* #date 10/22/2014
*/
public class Example {
/**
* Returns Example2 object
* If there is no Example2 object, throws exception
*
* #return obj Example2
* #throws Exception
*/
public Example2 doExample() throws Exception {
try {
// Get the object
Example2 obj = new Example2();
return obj;
} catch (Exception e) {
// Log the exception and rethrow
// Log.logException(e);
throw e;
}
}
}
Example2.java
/**
* Example2.java
* #author Seval
*
*/
public class Example2 {
/**
* Constructor of Example2
* #throws Exception
*/
public Example2() throws Exception{
throw new Exception("Please set the \"obj\"");
}
}
That really depends on if you expect to find the object, or not. If you follow the school of thought that exceptions should be used for indicating something, well, err, exceptional has occured then:
Object found; return object
Object not-found; throw exception
Otherwise, return null.