We Keep Coding

Avoid continuous "if (...)" checks while executing function

I have a function which looks like the following:
public Status execute() {
Status status = doSomething();
if (status != Status.ABORTED) {
status = doSomethingElse();
}
if (status != Status.ABORTED) {
status = doAgainSomethingElse(param1, param2);
}
if (status != Status.ABORTED) {
doSomethingWhichDoesntReturn(param3);
}
//etc.
return status;
}
So basically this function needs to return a Status. This is computed by a first function, and then recomputed by successive functions at the condition that, when those functions are executed, status != Status.ABORTED.
I would like to refactor this code but I don't have any valid idea in my mind.
If it was always status = someFunction(someParam), I would have used a list of Function<TypeInput, Status> and executed that list in loop:
List<Function<TypeInput, Status>> actions = List.of(function1, function2...);
for (Function<TypeInput, Status> f : actions) {
if (status != Status.ABORTED) {
status = f.apply(input);
}
}
The problem though is that each action may be different (sometimes it's a function which returns Status, sometimes there are parameters but not always the same size, sometimes it's just a void function etc.)
Does anyone have any idea?
Note: as soon as the status gets Status.ABORTED, I can return (I don't need to execute the rest of the function as anything is executed only if the status is not Status.ABORTED).

This looks like a good case for a try-catch approach. You could throw an exception in either of the methods e.g. StatusAbortedException and catch that to return the appropriate Status. It could look like this
try {
Status status = doSomethingElse();
status = doAgainSomethingElse(param1, param2);
status = doSomethingWhichDoesntReturn(param3); // this one probably does smth else
return status;
} catch (StatusAbortedException e){
// return Status.Aborted
}

Expanding on dave's idea (I was thinking along the same lines) you could provide a class that represents something like a conditional chain:
//individual "chain links", i.e. elements in the chain
interface ChainLink<V> {
V execute(V v) throws Exception;
}
class ConditionalChain<V> {
private final V initialValue;
private final Predicate<V> condition;
private final Collection<ChainLink<V>> links = new LinkedList<>();
//creates the chain with the initial condition value and the condition
public ConditionalChain(V initialValue, Predicate<V> condition) {
this.initialValue = initialValue;
this.condition = condition;
}
//execute the chain
public V execute() throws Exception {
V v = initialValue;
for( ChainLink<V> link : links ) {
//apply the condition first to test the initial value
if( !condition.test(v) ) {
break;
}
v = link.execute(v);
}
return v;
}
//chain a Callable that returns a new value
public ConditionalChain<V> chain(Callable<V> c) {
links .add(v -> c.call() );
return this;
}
//chain a Runnable that doesn't change the value
ConditionalChainer<V> chain(Runnable r) {
links .add(v -> { r.run(); return v; } );
return this;
}
//helper to get the chain started
public static <T> ConditionalChain<T> start(T initialValue, Predicate<T> condition) {
return new ConditionalChain<T>(initialValue, condition);
}
}
We're using out own (internal) functional interface to allow for returning the status even when using a runnable and to support exceptions being thrown.
This could also be expanded to allow for functions that take the current status as a parameter.
The chain itself could then look like this:
Status status = ConditionalChain.start(Status.RUNNING, s -> s != Status.ABORTED )
.chain(() -> doSomething())
.chain(() -> doSomethingElse())
.chain(() -> doSomethingWhichDoesntReturn(param3))
.chain(() -> doAgainSomethingElse("param1", "param2"))
.execute();
That way you'd be able to reuse the chain with different predicates. You could even return a "chain result" that contains the status as well as the index of the last element that has been executed, e.g. if you're interested that execution stopped after doSomethingElse().

There are several options you can go for. One option is a continuation passing style.
This doesn't look all that good in Java, but you can do something similar.
// This is pseudo code, intended to illustrate the concept.
cpsMethod(Arg... args, ClosureOverFunctionSoItIsNullary continuation) {
// do stuff
continuation.call();
}
So basically, the method gets what's supposed to happen next passed into it. There are some downsides to this approach in Java, namely that you don't have tail-call optimization, so you can get a stack overflow, and perhaps more importantly, it looks very different from normal Java.
// Illustrative pseudo code
return doSomething(() -> doSomethingElse(() -> doAgainSomethingElse(param1, param2, () -> doSomethingWhichDoesntReturn())));
This removes the ifs, or rather, put the test inside every method, which now has to decide if it's going to continue, or if it's going to just return Status.ABORTED.
You could of course make this thing prettier by putting the handling outside and just take the methods as producers, give in a Predicate/hardcode the test, and just offer varargs:
private continuationPasser(Supplier<Status> first, Supplier<Status>... rest) {
Objects.requireNonNull(first);
Status status = first.get();
for(Supplier<T> continuation : methods) {
status = continuation.get();
if(status == Status.ABORTED) {
return status;
}
}
}
Dirt simple code, does exactly what you'd expect, and now your call on top will go from:
public Status execute() {
Status status = doSomething();
if (status != Status.ABORTED) {
status = doSomethingElse();
}
if (status != Status.ABORTED) {
status = doAgainSomethingElse(param1, param2);
}
if (status != Status.ABORTED) {
doSomethingWhichDoesntReturn(param3);
}
//etc.
return status;
}
To something like:
public Status execute() {
return continuationPasser(
this::doSomething,
this::doSomethingElse,
() -> doAgainSomethingElse(arg1, arg2);
() -> doSomethingWhichDoesntReturn(arg3));
Except for, you know, the last one doesn't return anything.
If it's trivial to make it return something, then you could just do that. If that's not trivial, you can just change the type from a Supplier to a Function<Status, T>, and you can pass in the last status if you want.
But that's an option. Take a functional idea and make it work. This has the benefit of being very clear if you know what continuation passing is. You could generalize the idea to take in a predicate too, if you'd like. Another way to do this would be to change the continuationPasser a bit, to make it pass in the previous result, and let the methods themselves decide what they want to do.
Then continutationPasser can look like this:
continuationPasser(Function<Status, Status> first, Function<Status, Status>... rest) {
Objects.requireNonNull(first);
Status status = first.apply(Status.SOME_REASONABLE_VALUE_LIKE_NOT_STARTED);
// You could use some reduce function here if you want to.
// The choice of a loop here is just my personal preference.
for(Function<Status, Status> fun : rest) {
status = rest.apply(status);
}
return status;
}
This makes the continuation passer even simple.
You start off by applying the first function, to get a starting value. Then you just for-each over the rest of them. And they can just start with checking for the ABORTED status and exit early. You'll still have the ifs, but your main running code will look positively neat now.
You can always wrap your methods in something like:
Function<Status, Status> runIfNotAborted(Supplier<Status> supplier) {
return (Status s) -> s == ABORTED? ABORTED : supplier.get();
}
Function<Status, Status> returnPreviousStatus(Runnable code) {
return (s) -> {
code.run();
return s;
}
}
And now you don't even have to change your methods. (But if you were to do this style that might be a better option if it was available.)
public Status execute() {
return continuationPasser(
runIfNotAborted(this::doSomething),
runIfNotAborted(this::doSomethingElse),
runIfNotAborted(() -> doAgainSomethingElse(arg1, arg2)),
runIfNotAborted(returnPreviousStatus(() -> doSomethingWhichDoesntReturn(arg3)));
And now it's quite clear what's going on. We're building functions on top of functions, in what looks a bit like a functional decorator-pattern.
This is a very general idea, and you can do this more specialized or generalize it more if you want to. But be careful or you'll write a framework to not have to write an if/else. Jenkins uses this idea for its pipelines, but has a bit more stuff in it to pass along the environment as well for example.

You could have a closure over the different function signatures, so they all have the same signature, and then iterate over your list like you wanted until the status has changed. Something like this (but using a list, I was just a little lazy since this gets the point across):
https://onlinegdb.com/4JB1flbww
interface StatusInterface {
public String fixStatus();
}
public class Main
{
public static String A(boolean x) {
if (x) {
return "fixed";
}
return "broken";
}
public static String B(boolean x, boolean y) {
if (!x && y) {
return "fixed";
}
return "broken";
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
// Lambda Expression
boolean x = false;
boolean y = true;
StatusInterface AWrapped = () ->
{
return A(x);
};
StatusInterface BWrapped = () ->
{
return B(x, y);
};
// Calling the above interface
String status = "broken";
for (int i = 0; i < 2 && status.equals("broken"); i++) {
if (i == 0) status = AWrapped.fixStatus();
else status = BWrapped.fixStatus();
}
System.out.println(status);
}

An implementation of Optional for empty Strings

One of the best things about Optional is it saves all the boilerplate checking for null values in a long chain:
Optional.ofNullable(myService.getSomething())
.map(secondService::fetch)
.map(thirdService::fetchAgain)
// And so forth...
At any point the Optional will jump onto the 'empty' track if map returns a null.
It would be great if something similar could be done for Strings instead of having to check them for String::isEmpty every time:
Optional.ofNullable(entity.getName())
.filter(String::isEmpty)
.map(Utils::performSomeOperation)
.filter(String::isEmpty)
.or(service::getMostCommonName)
.filter(String::isEmpty)
.orElse("Bob");
Something like this:
OptionalString.ofEmptyable(entity.getName())
.map(Utils::performSomeOperation)
.or(service::getMostCommonName)
.orElse("Bob");
The key logic in Optional happens in ofNullable when it calls its check for value == null. Theoretically you could apply any sort of logic in there:
MagicalOptionalString(StringUtils::isNotBlank).ofEmptyable(entity.getName())
.map(Utils::performSomeOperation)
.or(service::getMostCommonName)
.orElse("Bob");
However, Optional is final, preventing any straightforward way of extending this behaviour. So is there an existing, robust implementation of this out there already?

Trying out a few things to resolve what you were aiming at, and realizing that I would second the thought from VGR as implementing such a use case is a lot of extra work as compared to using the existing methods.
Yet, few details that I could add to after spending some time looking over the implementations -
As a utility, you could implement a static implementation which verifies for both null and isEmpty condition for a string input and returns Optional accordingly. The code could look something like -
private static Optional<String> ofEmptyable(String string) {
return isNullOrEmpty(string) ? Optional.empty() : Optional.of(string);
}
private static boolean isNullOrEmpty(String target) {
return target == null || target.isEmpty();
}
this could then replace the usage of the ofNullable which specifically checks for null(the primary purpose of Optional).
Since the expectations in your problem statement were to actually handle the cases per method(map/or/orElse) call as in the optional, one approach similar to OptionalInt could be to implement a custom OptionalString as -
public final class OptionalString {
private static final OptionalString EMPTY = new OptionalString();
private final boolean isPresent;
private final String value;
private OptionalString() {
this.isPresent = false;
this.value = "";
}
private static OptionalString empty() {
return EMPTY;
}
private boolean isPresent() {
return isPresent;
}
private OptionalString(String value) {
this.isPresent = true;
this.value = value;
}
public static OptionalString of(String value) {
return value == null || value.isEmpty() ? OptionalString.empty() : new OptionalString(value);
}
public OptionalString map(Function<? super String, ? extends String> mapper) {
return !isPresent() ? OptionalString.empty() : OptionalString.of(mapper.apply(this.value));
}
public OptionalString or(Supplier<String> supplier) {
return isPresent() ? this : OptionalString.of(supplier.get());
}
String orElse(String other) {
return isPresent ? value : other;
}
public String getAsString() {
return Optional.of(value).orElseThrow(() -> new NoSuchElementException("No value present"));
}
}
which could be further implemented for your use case in the following manner -
String customImpl = OptionalString.of(entity.getName())
.map(OptionalStringTest::trimWhiteSpaces) // OptionalStringTest is my test class name where 'trimWhiteSpaces' operation on String resides
.or(service::getMostCommonName)
.orElse("learning");
System.out.println(String.format("custom implementation - %s", customImpl));
where
private static String trimWhiteSpaces(String x) {
return x.trim();
}
Note - Honestly, I couldn't find the rationale behind not having an OptionalString class upfront in the JDK (the reason why I am stating this is because I suspect there definitely must have been a thought behind it), I believe its just that the radius of my reach is much smaller and I would expect someone credible to add to the details here. IMHO, it seems more like almost all of what you desire is right there using the Optional<String> and which takes us back to the starting of the loop.

For anyone working in Kotlin, this is really easy to do:
class NonEmptyString private constructor(val Email: String) {
companion object Factory {
operator fun invoke(value: String?): T? = value?.let { if (it.isNotEmpty()) NonEmptyString(value) else null }
}
}
The "static" invoke function conditionally creates a new object depending on whether it's valid or not. And allows you to call it like a constructor (NonEmptyString(value)). The private constructor forces you to use the invoke method.
Because this returns a null if it's not valid, and Kotlin has null-safety built in, it can be really easy to chain. Adding map or flatMap functions is then pretty straight-forward.
See this Code Review question for a more comprehensive, generalisable example I wrote.

Return first non-null value

I have a number of functions:
String first(){}
String second(){}
...
String default(){}
Each can return a null value, except the default. each function can take different parameters. For example, first could take no arguments, second could take in a String, third could take three arguments, etc. What I'd like to do is something like:
ObjectUtils.firstNonNull(first(), second(), ..., default());
The problem is that because of the function call, this does eager evaluation. Where'd I'd like to exit early, say after the second function (because the function calls can be expensive, think API calls, etc). In other languages, you can do something similar to this:
return first() || second() || ... || default()
In Java, I know I can do something like:
String value;
if (value = first()) == null || (value = second()) == null ...
return value;
That's not very readable IMO because of all the == null checks.ObjectUtils.firstNonNull() creates a collection first, and then iterates, which is okay as long as the function gets evaluated lazily.
Suggestions? (besides doing a bunch of ifs)

String s = Stream.<Supplier<String>>of(this::first, this::second /*, ... */)
.map(Supplier::get)
.filter(Objects::nonNull)
.findFirst()
.orElseGet(this::defaultOne);
It stops on the first non-null value or else sets the value which is returned from defaultOne. As long as you stay sequential, you are safe. Of course this requires Java 8 or later.
The reason why it stops on the first occurrence of a non-null value is due how the Stream handles each step. The map is an intermediate operation, so is filter. The findFirst on the other side is a short-circuiting terminal operation. So it continues with the next element until one matches the filter. If no element matches an empty optional is returned and so the orElseGet-supplier is called.
this::first, etc. are just method references. If they are static replace it with YourClassName::first, etc.
Here is an example if the signature of your methods would differ:
String s = Stream.<Supplier<String>>of(() -> first("takesOneArgument"),
() -> second("takes", 3, "arguments")
/*, ... */)
.map(Supplier::get)
.filter(Objects::nonNull)
.findFirst()
.orElseGet(this::defaultOne);
Note that the Supplier is only evaluated when you call get on it. That way you get your lazy evaluation behaviour. The method-parameters within your supplier-lambda-expression must be final or effectively final.

This can be done pretty cleanly with a stream of Suppliers.
Optional<String> result = Stream.<Supplier<String>> of(
() -> first(),
() -> second(),
() -> third() )
.map( x -> x.get() )
.filter( s -> s != null)
.findFirst();
The reason this works is that despite appearances, the whole execution is driven by findFirst(), which pulls an item from filter(), which lazily pulls items from map(), which calls get() to handle each pull. findFirst() will stop pulling from the stream when one item has passed the filter, so subsequent suppliers will not have get() called.
Although I personally find the declarative Stream style cleaner and more expressive, you don't have to use Stream to work with Suppliers if you don't like the style:
Optional<String> firstNonNull(List<Supplier<String>> suppliers {
for(Supplier<String> supplier : suppliers) {
String s = supplier.get();
if(s != null) {
return Optional.of(s);
}
}
return Optional.empty();
}
It should be obvious how instead of returning Optional you could equally return a String, either returning null (yuk), a default string, or throwing an exception, if you exhaust options from the list.

It isn't readable because you are dealing with a bunch of separate functions that don't express any kind of connection with each other. When you attempt to put them together, the lack of direction is apparent.
Instead try
public String getFirstValue() {
String value;
value = first();
if (value != null) return value;
value = second();
if (value != null) return value;
value = third();
if (value != null) return value;
...
return value;
}
Will it be long? Probably. But you are applying code on top of a interface that's not friendly toward your approach.
Now, if you could change the interface, you might make the interface more friendly. A possible example would be to have the steps be "ValueProvider" objects.
public interface ValueProvider {
public String getValue();
}
And then you could use it like
public String getFirstValue(List<ValueProvider> providers) {
String value;
for (ValueProvider provider : providers) {
value = provider.getValue();
if (value != null) return value;
}
return null;
}
And there are various other approaches, but they require restructuring the code to be more object-oriented. Remember, just because Java is an Object-Oriented programming language, that doesn't mean it will always be used in an Object-Oriented manner. The first()...last() method listing is very not-object oriented, because it doesn't model a List. Even though the method names are expressive, a List has methods on it which permit easy integration with tools like for loops and Iterators.

If you are using java 8 you can convert these function calls to lambdas.
public static<T> T firstNonNull(Supplier<T> defaultSupplier, Supplier<T>... funcs){
return Arrays.stream(funcs).filter(p -> p.get() != null).findFirst().orElse(defaultSupplier).get();
}
If you don't want the generic implementation and use it only for Strings go on and just replace T with String:
public static String firstNonNull(Supplier<String> defaultSupplier, Supplier<String>... funcs){
return Arrays.stream(funcs).filter(p -> p.get() != null).findFirst().orElse(defaultSupplier).get();
}
And then call it like:
firstNonNull(() -> getDefault(), () -> first(arg1, arg2), () -> second(arg3));
P.S. btw default is a reserved keyword, so you cannot use it as a method name :)
EDIT: ok, the best way to do this would be to return Optional, then you don't need to pass default supplier separetely:
#SafeVarargs
public static<T> Optional<T> firstNonNull(Supplier<T>... funcs){
return Arrays.stream(funcs).filter(p -> p.get() != null).map(s -> s.get()).findFirst();
}

If you want to package it up into a utility method, you'll have to wrap each function up into something that defers execution. Perhaps something like this:
public interface Wrapper<T> {
T call();
}
public static <T> T firstNonNull(Wrapper<T> defaultFunction, Wrapper<T>... funcs) {
T val;
for (Wrapper<T> func : funcs) {
if ((val = func.call()) != null) {
return val;
}
}
return defaultFunction.call();
}
You could use java.util.concurrent.Callable instead of defining your own Wrapper class, but then you'd have to deal with the exception that Callable.call() is declared to throw.
This can then be called with:
String value = firstNonNull(
new Wrapper<>() { #Override public String call() { return defaultFunc(); },
new Wrapper<>() { #Override public String call() { return first(); },
new Wrapper<>() { #Override public String call() { return second(); },
...
);
In Java 8, as #dorukayhan points out, you can dispense with defining your own Wrapper class and just use the Supplier interface. Also, the call can be done much more cleanly with lambdas:
String value = firstNonNull(
() -> defaultFunc(),
() -> first(),
() -> second(),
...
);
You can also (as #Oliver Charlesworth suggests) use method references as shorthand for the lambda expressions:
String value = firstNonNull(
MyClass::defaultFunc,
MyClass::first,
MyClass::second,
...
);
I'm of two minds as to which is more readable.
Alternatively, you can use one of the streaming solutions that many other answers have proposed.

Just make a class with one function like this:
class ValueCollector {
String value;
boolean v(String val) { this.value = val; return val == null; }
}
ValueCollector c = new ValueCollector();
if c.v(first()) || c.v(second()) ...
return c.value;

The above examples seemed too long for just choosing between 2 variables, I'd go with something like this (unless you've got a longer list of variables to chose from):
Optional.ofNullable(first).orElse(Optional.ofNullable(second).orElse(default));

You can accomplish this via reflection:
public Object getFirstNonNull(Object target, Method... methods) {
Object value = null;
for (Method m : methods) {
if ( (value = m.invoke(target)) != null) {
break;
}
}
return value;
}

Functional style of Java 8's Optional.ifPresent and if-not-Present?

In Java 8, I want to do something to an Optional object if it is present, and do another thing if it is not present.
if (opt.isPresent()) {
System.out.println("found");
} else {
System.out.println("Not found");
}
This is not a 'functional style', though.
Optional has an ifPresent() method, but I am unable to chain an orElse() method.
Thus, I cannot write:
opt.ifPresent( x -> System.out.println("found " + x))
.orElse( System.out.println("NOT FOUND"));
In reply to #assylias, I don't think Optional.map() works for the following case:
opt.map( o -> {
System.out.println("while opt is present...");
o.setProperty(xxx);
dao.update(o);
return null;
}).orElseGet( () -> {
System.out.println("create new obj");
dao.save(new obj);
return null;
});
In this case, when opt is present, I update its property and save to the database. When it is not available, I create a new obj and save to the database.
Note in the two lambdas I have to return null.
But when opt is present, both lambdas will be executed. obj will be updated, and a new object will be saved to the database . This is because of the return null in the first lambda. And orElseGet() will continue to execute.

If you are using Java 9+, you can use ifPresentOrElse() method:
opt.ifPresentOrElse(
value -> System.out.println("Found: " + value),
() -> System.out.println("Not found")
);

For me the answer of #Dane White is OK, first I did not like using Runnable but I could not find any alternatives.
Here another implementation I preferred more:
public class OptionalConsumer<T> {
private Optional<T> optional;
private OptionalConsumer(Optional<T> optional) {
this.optional = optional;
}
public static <T> OptionalConsumer<T> of(Optional<T> optional) {
return new OptionalConsumer<>(optional);
}
public OptionalConsumer<T> ifPresent(Consumer<T> c) {
optional.ifPresent(c);
return this;
}
public OptionalConsumer<T> ifNotPresent(Runnable r) {
if (!optional.isPresent()) {
r.run();
}
return this;
}
}
Then:
Optional<Any> o = Optional.of(...);
OptionalConsumer.of(o).ifPresent(s -> System.out.println("isPresent " + s))
.ifNotPresent(() -> System.out.println("! isPresent"));
Update 1:
the above solution for the traditional way of development when you have the value and want to process it but what if I want to define the functionality and the execution will be then, check below enhancement;
public class OptionalConsumer<T> implements Consumer<Optional<T>> {
private final Consumer<T> c;
private final Runnable r;
public OptionalConsumer(Consumer<T> c, Runnable r) {
super();
this.c = c;
this.r = r;
}
public static <T> OptionalConsumer<T> of(Consumer<T> c, Runnable r) {
return new OptionalConsumer(c, r);
}
#Override
public void accept(Optional<T> t) {
if (t.isPresent()) {
c.accept(t.get());
}
else {
r.run();
}
}
Then could be used as:
Consumer<Optional<Integer>> c = OptionalConsumer.of(
System.out::println,
() -> System.out.println("Not fit")
);
IntStream.range(0, 100)
.boxed()
.map(i -> Optional.of(i)
.filter(j -> j % 2 == 0))
.forEach(c);
In this new code you have 3 things:
can define the functionality before the existing of an object easy.
not creating object reference for each Optional, only one, you have so less memory than less GC.
it is implementing consumer for better usage with other components.
By the way, now its name is more descriptive it is actually Consumer<Optional<?>>

Java 9 introduces
ifPresentOrElse if a value is present, performs the given action with the value, otherwise performs the given empty-based action.
See excellent Optional in Java 8 cheat sheet.
It provides all answers for most use cases.
Short summary below
ifPresent() - do something when Optional is set
opt.ifPresent(x -> print(x));
opt.ifPresent(this::print);
filter() - reject (filter out) certain Optional values.
opt.filter(x -> x.contains("ab")).ifPresent(this::print);
map() - transform value if present
opt.map(String::trim).filter(t -> t.length() > 1).ifPresent(this::print);
orElse()/orElseGet() - turning empty Optional to default T
int len = opt.map(String::length).orElse(-1);
int len = opt.
map(String::length).
orElseGet(() -> slowDefault()); //orElseGet(this::slowDefault)
orElseThrow() - lazily throw exceptions on empty Optional
opt.
filter(s -> !s.isEmpty()).
map(s -> s.charAt(0)).
orElseThrow(IllegalArgumentException::new);

An alternative is:
System.out.println(opt.map(o -> "Found")
.orElse("Not found"));
I don't think it improves readability though.
Or as Marko suggested, use a ternary operator:
System.out.println(opt.isPresent() ? "Found" : "Not found");

Another solution would be to use higher-order functions as follows
opt.<Runnable>map(value -> () -> System.out.println("Found " + value))
.orElse(() -> System.out.println("Not Found"))
.run();

There isn't a great way to do it out of the box. If you want to be using your cleaner syntax on a regular basis, then you can create a utility class to help out:
public class OptionalEx {
private boolean isPresent;
private OptionalEx(boolean isPresent) {
this.isPresent = isPresent;
}
public void orElse(Runnable runner) {
if (!isPresent) {
runner.run();
}
}
public static <T> OptionalEx ifPresent(Optional<T> opt, Consumer<? super T> consumer) {
if (opt.isPresent()) {
consumer.accept(opt.get());
return new OptionalEx(true);
}
return new OptionalEx(false);
}
}
Then you can use a static import elsewhere to get syntax that is close to what you're after:
import static com.example.OptionalEx.ifPresent;
ifPresent(opt, x -> System.out.println("found " + x))
.orElse(() -> System.out.println("NOT FOUND"));

If you can use only Java 8 or lower:
1) if you don't have spring-data the best way so far is:
opt.<Runnable>map(param -> () -> System.out.println(param))
.orElse(() -> System.out.println("no-param-specified"))
.run();
Now I know it's not so readable and even hard to understand for someone, but looks fine for me personally and I don't see another nice fluent way for this case.
2) if you're lucky enough and you can use spring-data the best way is
Optionals#ifPresentOrElse:
Optionals.ifPresentOrElse(opt, System.out::println,
() -> System.out.println("no-param-specified"));
If you can use Java 9, you should definitely go with:
opt.ifPresentOrElse(System.out::println,
() -> System.out.println("no-param-specified"));

You cannot call orElse after ifPresent, the reason is, orElse is called on an optiional but ifPresent returns void. So the best approach to achieve is ifPresentOrElse.
It could be like this:
op.ifPresentOrElse(
(value)
-> { System.out.println(
"Value is present, its: "
+ value); },
()
-> { System.out.println(
"Value is empty"); });

The described behavior can be achieved by using Vavr (formerly known as Javaslang), an object-functional library for Java 8+, that implements most of Scala constructs (being Scala a more expressive language with a way richer type system built on JVM). It is a very good library to add to your Java projects to write pure functional code.
Vavr provides the Option monad that provides functions to work with the Option type such as:
fold: to map the value of the option on both cases (defined/empty)
onEmpty: allows to execute a Runnable when option is empty
peek: allows to consume the value of the option (when defined).
and it is also Serializable on the contrary of Optional which means you can safely use it as method argument and instance member.
Option follows the monad laws at difference to the Java's Optional "pseudo-monad" and provides a richer API. And of course you can make it from a Java's Optional (and the other way around): Option.ofOptional(javaOptional) –Vavr is focused on interoperability.
Going to the example:
// AWESOME Vavr functional collections (immutable for the gread good :)
// fully convertible to Java's counterparts.
final Map<String, String> map = Map("key1", "value1", "key2", "value2");
final Option<String> opt = map.get("nonExistentKey"); // you're safe of null refs!
final String result = opt.fold(
() -> "Not found!!!", // Option is None
val -> "Found the value: " + val // Option is Some(val)
);
Moreover, all Vavr types are convertible to its Java counterparts, for the sake of the example: Optional javaOptional = opt.toJava(), very easy :) Of course the conversion also exists in the other way: Option option = Option.ofOptional(javaOptional).
N.B. Vavr offers a io.vavr.API class with a lot of convenient static methods =)
Further reading
Null reference, the billion dollar mistake
N.B. This is only a very little example of what Vavr offers (pattern matching, streams a.k.a. lazy evaluated lists, monadic types, immutable collections,...).

The problem here:
optional
.map(object -> {
System.out.println("If present.");
return null;
})
.orElseGet( () -> {
System.out.println("If empty.");
return null;
});
Is that map() converts the null returned by the first function to empty(); it then returns empty(). As it returns empty(), it prompts the invocation of the second function. Note that orElseGet() does not convert the null returned by the second function to empty(), so it will return null.
See the implementation of map():
public<U> Optional<U> map(Function<? super T, ? extends U> mapper) {
Objects.requireNonNull(mapper);
if (!isPresent())
return empty();
else {
return Optional.ofNullable(mapper.apply(value));
}
}
And the implementation of orElseGet():
public T orElseGet(Supplier<? extends T> other) {
return value != null ? value : other.get();
}
Thus when executed:
if optional.isPresent(), the system will print If present., then If empty., and the expression will evaluate to null.
if !optional.isPresent(), the system will print If empty., and the expression will evaluate to null.
If the function provided to map() returned any other value - any other value - the code would work as you expect, with the function provided to map() being executed if isPresent() and the function provided to orElseGet() if !isPresent():
For example, this:
optional
.map(data -> {
System.out.println("If present.");
return 0;
})
.orElseGet( () -> {
System.out.println("If empty.");
return 0;
});
When executed:
if optional.isPresent(), the system will print If present., and the expression will evaluate to 0.
if !optional.isPresent(), the system will print If empty., and the expression will evaluate to 0.
If your specific case, I suggest that your insert and update methods return, say, the persisted object, or the id of the persisted object, or something similarly useful; then you can use code similar to this:
final Object persist = optional
.map(object -> {
System.out.println("If present.");
return update(object);
})
.orElseGet( () -> {
System.out.println("If empty.");
return insert(new Object());
});

Another solution could be following:
This is how you use it:
final Opt<String> opt = Opt.of("I'm a cool text");
opt.ifPresent()
.apply(s -> System.out.printf("Text is: %s\n", s))
.elseApply(() -> System.out.println("no text available"));
Or in case you in case of the opposite use case is true:
final Opt<String> opt = Opt.of("This is the text");
opt.ifNotPresent()
.apply(() -> System.out.println("Not present"))
.elseApply(t -> /*do something here*/);
This are the ingredients:
Little modified Function interface, just for the "elseApply" method
Optional enhancement
A little bit of curring :-)
The "cosmetically" enhanced Function interface.
#FunctionalInterface
public interface Fkt<T, R> extends Function<T, R> {
default R elseApply(final T t) {
return this.apply(t);
}
}
And the Optional wrapper class for enhancement:
public class Opt<T> {
private final Optional<T> optional;
private Opt(final Optional<T> theOptional) {
this.optional = theOptional;
}
public static <T> Opt<T> of(final T value) {
return new Opt<>(Optional.of(value));
}
public static <T> Opt<T> of(final Optional<T> optional) {
return new Opt<>(optional);
}
public static <T> Opt<T> ofNullable(final T value) {
return new Opt<>(Optional.ofNullable(value));
}
public static <T> Opt<T> empty() {
return new Opt<>(Optional.empty());
}
private final BiFunction<Consumer<T>, Runnable, Void> ifPresent = (present, notPresent) -> {
if (this.optional.isPresent()) {
present.accept(this.optional.get());
} else {
notPresent.run();
}
return null;
};
private final BiFunction<Runnable, Consumer<T>, Void> ifNotPresent = (notPresent, present) -> {
if (!this.optional.isPresent()) {
notPresent.run();
} else {
present.accept(this.optional.get());
}
return null;
};
public Fkt<Consumer<T>, Fkt<Runnable, Void>> ifPresent() {
return Opt.curry(this.ifPresent);
}
public Fkt<Runnable, Fkt<Consumer<T>, Void>> ifNotPresent() {
return Opt.curry(this.ifNotPresent);
}
private static <X, Y, Z> Fkt<X, Fkt<Y, Z>> curry(final BiFunction<X, Y, Z> function) {
return (final X x) -> (final Y y) -> function.apply(x, y);
}
}
This should do the trick and could serve as a basic template how to deal with such requirements.
The basic idea here is following. In a non functional style programming world you would probably implement a method taking two parameter where the first is a kind of runnable code which should be executed in case the value is available and the other parameter is the runnable code which should be run in case the value is not available. For the sake of better readability, you can use curring to split the function of two parameter in two functions of one parameter each. This is what I basically did here.
Hint: Opt also provides the other use case where you want to execute a piece of code just in case the value is not available. This could be done also via Optional.filter.stuff but I found this much more readable.
Hope that helps!
Additional Info:
There is another way to have say "if then else" using currying:
public static <X, Y> Function<Predicate<X>, Function<Function<X, Y>, Function<Function<X, Y>, Y>>> ifThenElse(X input) {
return (final Predicate<X> pred) -> (final Function<X, Y> ifPresent) -> (final Function<X, Y> ifNotPresent) -> pred.test(input) ? ifPresent.apply(input) : ifNotPresent.apply(input);
}
This way it is possible to say:
final String result = ifThenElse("fancy")
.apply(input -> input.contains("fancy")) /* test */
.apply(input -> input.toUpperCase()) /* if-case */
.apply(input -> input.toLowerCase()); /* else-case */

In case you want store the value:
Pair.of<List<>, List<>> output = opt.map(details -> Pair.of(details.a, details.b))).orElseGet(() -> Pair.of(Collections.emptyList(), Collections.emptyList()));

Supposing that you have a list and avoiding the isPresent() issue (related with optionals) you could use .iterator().hasNext() to check if not present.

calling function should return default value, if object (or any function result) is null

Is it possible to wrap following code in a reusable function?
EDIT: this is just an example, I want a working solution for ALL recursion depths
what I want is that following code is generated:
if (MyObject o == null ||
o.getSubObject() == null ||
o..getSubObject().getSubSubObject() == null /*||
... */)
return defaultValue;
return o.getSubObject().getSubObject()/*...*/.getDesiredValue();
by calling something like
Object defaultValue = null;
Object result = NullSafeCall(o.getSubObject().getSubObject()/*...*/.getDesiredValue(), defaultValue);
The seond code block is just an idea, I don't care how it looks like, all I want is that I, if desired, can avoid all the null checks before calling a deeper function...
Injection could do this propably, but is there no other/easier solution? Never looked at injection before yet...
EDIT2: example in another language: http://groovy.codehaus.org/Operators#Operators-SafeNavigationOperator

Not really, any code you would write this way would look horrible and/or use very slow reflection. Unless you use an actual Java preprocessor that can understand and change the code you've written.
A better (but associated with quite a bit of refactoring) approach would be to make sure that the values in question cannot possibly be null. For example, you could modify the individual accessors (getSubObject(), getDesiredValue()) to never return null in the first place: make them return default values. The accessors on the default values return default values in turn.

Java8 helps to get the closest you'll get to your syntax with decent performance I suspect;
// Evaluate with default 5 if anything returns null.
int result = Optional.eval(5, o, x->x.getSubObject(), x->x.getDesiredValue());
This can be done with this utility class;
class Optional {
public static <T, Tdef, T1> Tdef eval(Tdef def, T input, Function<T,T1> fn1,
Function<T1, Tdef> fn2)
{
if(input == null) return def;
T1 res1 = fn1.apply(input);
if(res1 == null) return def;
return fn2.apply(res1);
}
}
Sadly, you'll need a separate eval() defined per number of method calls in the chain, so you may want to define a few, but compile time type safe and reusable with just about any calls/types.

You can do something like this
public static Object NullSafeCall(MyObject o,Object defaultValue){
if ( o == null || o.getSubObject() == null)
{
return defaultValue;
}
else
{
return o.getSubObject().getDesiredValue();
}
}
Now you can call this method as follows
Object result = NullSafeCall(o, defaultValue);

i would suggest just replace
Object result = NullSafeCall(o.getSubObject().getDesiredValue(), defaultValue);
by the
Object result = (o == null || o.subObject == null) ? defaultVlue : o.getSubObject().getDesiredValue();
Create method only if you can reuse it......

What you want is not possible. It is essential to understand that using this syntax: Object result = NullSafeCall(o.getSubObject().getSubObject() ...); the part of o.getSubObject().getSubObject() will be evaluated before any control passes to the function/method thus throwing the exception.
It is required to have some type of context before executing such code. The closest to this I could think of, can be done using anonymous inner classes like the example below:
// intended to be implemented by an anonymous inner class
interface NullSafeOperation<T> {
public T executeSafely();
};
// our executor that executes operations safely
public static class NullSafeExecutor<T> {
public NullSafeExecutor() {}
public T execute(T defaultValue, NullSafeOperation<T> nso) {
T result = defaultValue;
try {
result = nso.executeSafely();
} catch(NullPointerException e) {
// ignore
}
return result;
}
// utility method to create a new instance and execute in one step
public static <T> T executeOperation(T defaultValue, NullSafeOperation<T> nso) {
NullSafeExecutor<T> e = new NullSafeExecutor<T>();
T result = e.execute(defaultValue, nso);
return result;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
final String aNullString = null;
String result = NullSafeExecutor.executeOperation("MyDefault", new NullSafeOperation<String>() {
#Override
public String executeSafely() {
// trying to call a method on a null string
// it will throw NullPointerException but it will be catched by the executor
return aNullString.trim();
}
});
System.out.println("Output = " + result); // prints: Output = MyDefault
}