Checking all function parameter in all the functions

Checking all function parameter in all the functions - java

When I first moved from c to Java I thought that I've finished will all the annoying parameter checks in the begining of every function . (Blessed exceptions)
Lately I've realized that I'm slowly moving back to that practice again , and I'm starting to get really annoyed with all the
if (null == a || null == b || null == a.getValue() || ...)
{
return null;
}
For example , I have a utility class that analyses web pages and extract specific elements from them. Any call to dom object function with null elements usually results in an exception - So in almost any function I write in this class has countless null checks :
private URL extractUrl(Element element) throws Exception {
if (null == element) {
return null;
} ...
public List<Object> getConcreteElements(String xpath) throws Exception {
if (null == xpath) {
return Collections.emptyList();
}...
public String getElementsAsXML(String xpath) throws Exception {
if (null == xpath) {
return null;
}...
in the beginning of every function. Is this something I should get used too or is there some coding practice I'm unaware of that can simplify my life?

Returning null means the caller must ALWAYS check the result from your method. Meaning MORE miserable null checks.
Consider using the NullObject pattern instead, where you return a valid object but having empty operations. I.e. an empty list if a collection is returned or similar.

At the public boundary of your component, you're always going to have to do data validation.
For internal methods, asserting that the values passed are correct is better.
Returning null is something that it's better to avoid if you can. Either fail then and there to indicate that there is an error upstream of you (internal case) or return an empty or default object if there is such a thing available (public case).

Yes, they're absolutely annoying. A few small things I've found that at least minimize this:
Clearly document in internal api's functions that can't return null, or under what conditions you can expect null. If you can trust your documentation, at least, this allows you to avoid null checks in certain places.
Some idioms minimize null checks - e.g.
if (string!=null && string.equals("A") --> if ("A".equals(string))
eclipse (as well as findbugs, I think, and probably many other ide's) can be set to flag redundant null checks, or missing null checks. Not perfect, but it helps.
But overall, you're correct. If my code didn't have null checks and logging statements, there wouldn't be anything there at all;)

Only check-null-return-null if that makes sense for your application. It may be that returning null simply causes problems for the client code, which doesn't expect a null back. It may be that there's no sensible return value in response to bad input, in which case use exceptions.
As to whether or not you should check the arguments, that depends on who's using that function. if it's a private function, it may be overkill to check. If it's a public API function, you absolutely should check.

In my experience, Java apps are easier to maintain if the default 'contract' for any API is that null parameter values and null results are not allowed. If a method is designed to allow a null argument or returns a null, the meaning and circumstances should be clearly specified in the Javadoc.
If an null is passed where the API does not specifically allow this, it is a bug and the best thing is to fail-fast with an NPE. (IMO, there is no need to document the possibility of an NPE ... it can be assumed.) If null is not a meaningful (documented) argument value, the practice of testing for null and returning null only serves to spread bad data and make it harder to debug your code. If your method uses the supplied null argument and that causes an NPE, so be it. If does not use the argument but it saves the value for future use, then it is worth testing for null and explicitly throwing a NPE.
I also try to avoid the (usually false) optimizations of using null to represent empty lists or empty arrays, at least at the API level.
Now there are situations where it makes sense for an API design to use nulls; e.g. in APIs where an object parameter implements some kind of plugin behavior / policy, or the null is used when an optional method parameter is not supplied. But you need to think about it and document it.

If you check for illegal values, don't hesitate to throw IllegalArgumentExceptions to notify the caller that he made an error. You can hide the boundary/illegal value checking in private methods, that increases the readability of the code, like - just taking one of your examples:
private URL extractUrl(Element element) throws Exception {
validateExactUrlParameter(element);
// the real url extraction code
}
private static validateExactUrlParameter(Element element)
throws IllegalArgumentException {
if (null == element) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Null value not allowed for exactUrl method");
}
// do some more checks here, if required
}
If you want to avoid try/catch blocks, then consider throwing unchecked exceptions (RuntimeException or custom subclasses).

Related

Null object design pattern Vs null object check

Why null object design pattern is better than null object check.
If we look at the memory footprint in null object design pattern we create a new dummy object of same type. Which show if we have object of big size and large number of nullable objects in search query, this pattern will create that much number of null object which will occupy more memory than a simple check which for null which my cost ignoreable delay in performance.
Null Object design pattern

The whole problem with null is that if you try to access a null value the application will throw a NullPointerException and abort.
To reduce the number of class NullXXX in this null object design pattern (its actually just the factory design dattern, not a pattern itself) you could make a static final NullCustomer which is always returned.
In Java 8 you can use the Optional approach in order to tell when a function does not always return values. This approach does not force you to create arbitrary null classes which pollute the overall structure (consider may have to refactor those null classes, too).
Eclipse and IntelliJ also offer compile time annotations #Nullable, #NonNull which give compiler warnings when accessing potential null objects. However, many frameworks are not annotated. IntelliJ therefore tries to discover those potential null accesses with static analysis.
Beside low adoption of this approach IntelliJ and Eclipse use their own annotations (org.eclipse.jdt.annotation.NonNull, com.intellij.annotations.NotNull) that those are not compatible. But, you can store the annotations outside of the code which works in IntelliJ. Eclipse want to implement this in the future, too. The problem is that there are many frameworks providing this feature giving you many different annotations doing the very same. There was JSR-305 which is dormant. It'd provide an annotation in javax. I don't know the reason why they did not pushed this further.

The major advantage of using Null Object rather than null is that using null you have to repeat checks of whether that object is indeed null, particularly in all methods that require that object.
In Java 8, one will have to do:
Object o = Objects.requireNotNull(o); //Throws NullPointerException if o is indeed null.
So, if you have a method that constantly pass the same object into various method, each method will need to check that the object received is not null before using it.
So, a better approach is to have a Null Object, or Optional (Java 8 and higher) so that you don't need to do the null check all the time. Instead one would:
Object o = optional.get(); //Throws NullPointerException if internal value is indeed null.
//Keep using o.
No (really) need for null checking. The fact that you have an Optional means that you might have a value or none.
Null Objects have no side effects because it usually does nothing (usually all methods is an empty method) so there is no need to worry about performance (bottlenecks/optimization/etc).

The main difference (and probably the advantage) of this pattern is distinctness. Think about the following method definition:
public static int length(String str);
This method calculates length of given string. But could argument be null? What will the method do? Throw exception? Return 0? Return -1? We do not know.
Some partial solution can be achieved by writing good java doc. The next and a little bit better solution is using annotations JSR305 annotattion #Nullable or #NotNullable that however can be ignored by developer.
If however you are using Null object pattern (e.g. Optional of guava or java 8) your code looks like the following:
public static int length(Optional<String> str);
So developer must care about wrapping his string into Optional and therefore understands that argument can be null. Attempt to get value from Optional that contains null causes exception that does not always happen when working with regular null.
Obviously you are right that using this pattern causes some additional CPU and memory consumption that however are not significant in most cases.

Suppose you have something like this:
private SomeClass someField;
void someMethod() {
// some other code
someField.method1();
// some other code
someField.method2();
// some other code
someField.method3();
}
Now suppose that there are valid use cases when someField can be null and you don't want to invoke its methods, but you want to execute the other some other code sections of the method. You would need to implement the method as:
void someMethod() {
// do something
if (someField != null) {
someField.method1();
}
// do something
if (someField != null) {
someField.method2();
}
// do something
if (someField != null) {
someField.method3();
}
}
By using Null object with empty (no-op) methods we avoid boilerplate null checks (and the possibility to forget to add the checks for all of the occurrences).
I often find this useful in situations when something is initialized asynchronously or optionally.

Avoid duplicated code 'cause of null objects? [duplicate]

I use x != null to avoid NullPointerException. Is there an alternative?
if (x != null) {
// ...
}

This to me sounds like a reasonably common problem that junior to intermediate developers tend to face at some point: they either don't know or don't trust the contracts they are participating in and defensively overcheck for nulls. Additionally, when writing their own code, they tend to rely on returning nulls to indicate something thus requiring the caller to check for nulls.
To put this another way, there are two instances where null checking comes up:
Where null is a valid response in terms of the contract; and
Where it isn't a valid response.
(2) is easy. As of Java 1.7 you can use Objects.requireNonNull(foo). (If you are stuck with a previous version then assertions may be a good alternative.)
"Proper" usage of this method would be like below. The method returns the object passed into it and throws a NullPointerException if the object is null. This means that the returned value is always non-null. The method is primarily intended for validating parameters.
public Foo(Bar bar) {
this.bar = Objects.requireNonNull(bar);
}
It can also be used like an assertion though since it throws an exception if the object is null. In both uses, a message can be added which will be shown in the exception. Below is using it like an assertion and providing a message.
Objects.requireNonNull(someobject, "if someobject is null then something is wrong");
someobject.doCalc();
Generally throwing a specific exception like NullPointerException when a value is null but shouldn't be is favorable to throwing a more general exception like AssertionError. This is the approach the Java library takes; favoring NullPointerException over IllegalArgumentException when an argument is not allowed to be null.
(1) is a little harder. If you have no control over the code you're calling then you're stuck. If null is a valid response, you have to check for it.
If it's code that you do control, however (and this is often the case), then it's a different story. Avoid using nulls as a response. With methods that return collections, it's easy: return empty collections (or arrays) instead of nulls pretty much all the time.
With non-collections it might be harder. Consider this as an example: if you have these interfaces:
public interface Action {
void doSomething();
}
public interface Parser {
Action findAction(String userInput);
}
where Parser takes raw user input and finds something to do, perhaps if you're implementing a command line interface for something. Now you might make the contract that it returns null if there's no appropriate action. That leads the null checking you're talking about.
An alternative solution is to never return null and instead use the Null Object pattern:
public class MyParser implements Parser {
private static Action DO_NOTHING = new Action() {
public void doSomething() { /* do nothing */ }
};
public Action findAction(String userInput) {
// ...
if ( /* we can't find any actions */ ) {
return DO_NOTHING;
}
}
}
Compare:
Parser parser = ParserFactory.getParser();
if (parser == null) {
// now what?
// this would be an example of where null isn't (or shouldn't be) a valid response
}
Action action = parser.findAction(someInput);
if (action == null) {
// do nothing
} else {
action.doSomething();
}
to
ParserFactory.getParser().findAction(someInput).doSomething();
which is a much better design because it leads to more concise code.
That said, perhaps it is entirely appropriate for the findAction() method to throw an Exception with a meaningful error message -- especially in this case where you are relying on user input. It would be much better for the findAction method to throw an Exception than for the calling method to blow up with a simple NullPointerException with no explanation.
try {
ParserFactory.getParser().findAction(someInput).doSomething();
} catch(ActionNotFoundException anfe) {
userConsole.err(anfe.getMessage());
}
Or if you think the try/catch mechanism is too ugly, rather than Do Nothing your default action should provide feedback to the user.
public Action findAction(final String userInput) {
/* Code to return requested Action if found */
return new Action() {
public void doSomething() {
userConsole.err("Action not found: " + userInput);
}
}
}

If you use (or planning to use) a Java IDE like JetBrains IntelliJ IDEA, Eclipse or Netbeans or a tool like findbugs then you can use annotations to solve this problem.
Basically, you've got #Nullable and #NotNull.
You can use in method and parameters, like this:
#NotNull public static String helloWorld() {
return "Hello World";
}
or
#Nullable public static String helloWorld() {
return "Hello World";
}
The second example won't compile (in IntelliJ IDEA).
When you use the first helloWorld() function in another piece of code:
public static void main(String[] args)
{
String result = helloWorld();
if(result != null) {
System.out.println(result);
}
}
Now the IntelliJ IDEA compiler will tell you that the check is useless, since the helloWorld() function won't return null, ever.
Using parameter
void someMethod(#NotNull someParameter) { }
if you write something like:
someMethod(null);
This won't compile.
Last example using #Nullable
#Nullable iWantToDestroyEverything() { return null; }
Doing this
iWantToDestroyEverything().something();
And you can be sure that this won't happen. :)
It's a nice way to let the compiler check something more than it usually does and to enforce your contracts to be stronger. Unfortunately, it's not supported by all the compilers.
In IntelliJ IDEA 10.5 and on, they added support for any other #Nullable #NotNull implementations.
See blog post More flexible and configurable #Nullable/#NotNull annotations.

If null-values are not allowed
If your method is called externally, start with something like this:
public void method(Object object) {
if (object == null) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("...");
}
Then, in the rest of that method, you'll know that object is not null.
If it is an internal method (not part of an API), just document that it cannot be null, and that's it.
Example:
public String getFirst3Chars(String text) {
return text.subString(0, 3);
}
However, if your method just passes the value on, and the next method passes it on etc. it could get problematic. In that case you may want to check the argument as above.
If null is allowed
This really depends. If find that I often do something like this:
if (object == null) {
// something
} else {
// something else
}
So I branch, and do two completely different things. There is no ugly code snippet, because I really need to do two different things depending on the data. For example, should I work on the input, or should I calculate a good default value?
It's actually rare for me to use the idiom "if (object != null && ...".
It may be easier to give you examples, if you show examples of where you typically use the idiom.

Wow, I almost hate to add another answer when we have 57 different ways to recommend the NullObject pattern, but I think that some people interested in this question may like to know that there is a proposal on the table for Java 7 to add "null-safe handling"—a streamlined syntax for if-not-equal-null logic.
The example given by Alex Miller looks like this:
public String getPostcode(Person person) {
return person?.getAddress()?.getPostcode();
}
The ?. means only de-reference the left identifier if it is not null, otherwise evaluate the remainder of the expression as null. Some people, like Java Posse member Dick Wall and the voters at Devoxx really love this proposal, but there is opposition too, on the grounds that it will actually encourage more use of null as a sentinel value.
Update: An official proposal for a null-safe operator in Java 7 has been submitted under Project Coin. The syntax is a little different than the example above, but it's the same notion.
Update: The null-safe operator proposal didn't make it into Project Coin. So, you won't be seeing this syntax in Java 7.

If undefined values are not permitted:
You might configure your IDE to warn you about potential null dereferencing. E.g. in Eclipse, see Preferences > Java > Compiler > Errors/Warnings/Null analysis.
If undefined values are permitted:
If you want to define a new API where undefined values make sense, use the Option Pattern (may be familiar from functional languages). It has the following advantages:
It is stated explicitly in the API whether an input or output exists or not.
The compiler forces you to handle the "undefined" case.
Option is a monad, so there is no need for verbose null checking, just use map/foreach/getOrElse or a similar combinator to safely use the value (example).
Java 8 has a built-in Optional class (recommended); for earlier versions, there are library alternatives, for example Guava's Optional or FunctionalJava's Option. But like many functional-style patterns, using Option in Java (even 8) results in quite some boilerplate, which you can reduce using a less verbose JVM language, e.g. Scala or Xtend.
If you have to deal with an API which might return nulls, you can't do much in Java. Xtend and Groovy have the Elvis operator ?: and the null-safe dereference operator ?., but note that this returns null in case of a null reference, so it just "defers" the proper handling of null.

Only for this situation -
Not checking if a variable is null before invoking an equals method (a string compare example below):
if ( foo.equals("bar") ) {
// ...
}
will result in a NullPointerException if foo doesn't exist.
You can avoid that if you compare your Strings like this:
if ( "bar".equals(foo) ) {
// ...
}

With Java 8 comes the new java.util.Optional class that arguably solves some of the problem. One can at least say that it improves the readability of the code, and in the case of public APIs make the API's contract clearer to the client developer.
They work like that:
An optional object for a given type (Fruit) is created as the return type of a method. It can be empty or contain a Fruit object:
public static Optional<Fruit> find(String name, List<Fruit> fruits) {
for (Fruit fruit : fruits) {
if (fruit.getName().equals(name)) {
return Optional.of(fruit);
}
}
return Optional.empty();
}
Now look at this code where we search a list of Fruit (fruits) for a given Fruit instance:
Optional<Fruit> found = find("lemon", fruits);
if (found.isPresent()) {
Fruit fruit = found.get();
String name = fruit.getName();
}
You can use the map() operator to perform a computation on--or extract a value from--an optional object. orElse() lets you provide a fallback for missing values.
String nameOrNull = find("lemon", fruits)
.map(f -> f.getName())
.orElse("empty-name");
Of course, the check for null/empty value is still necessary, but at least the developer is conscious that the value might be empty and the risk of forgetting to check is limited.
In an API built from scratch using Optional whenever a return value might be empty, and returning a plain object only when it cannot be null (convention), the client code might abandon null checks on simple object return values...
Of course Optional could also be used as a method argument, perhaps a better way to indicate optional arguments than 5 or 10 overloading methods in some cases.
Optional offers other convenient methods, such as orElse that allow the use of a default value, and ifPresent that works with lambda expressions.
I invite you to read this article (my main source for writing this answer) in which the NullPointerException (and in general null pointer) problematic as well as the (partial) solution brought by Optional are well explained: Java Optional Objects.

Depending on what kind of objects you are checking you may be able to use some of the classes in the apache commons such as: apache commons lang and apache commons collections
Example:
String foo;
...
if( StringUtils.isBlank( foo ) ) {
///do something
}
or (depending on what you need to check):
String foo;
...
if( StringUtils.isEmpty( foo ) ) {
///do something
}
The StringUtils class is only one of many; there are quite a few good classes in the commons that do null safe manipulation.
Here follows an example of how you can use null vallidation in JAVA when you include apache library(commons-lang-2.4.jar)
public DOCUMENT read(String xml, ValidationEventHandler validationEventHandler) {
Validate.notNull(validationEventHandler,"ValidationHandler not Injected");
return read(new StringReader(xml), true, validationEventHandler);
}
And if you are using Spring, Spring also has the same functionality in its package, see library(spring-2.4.6.jar)
Example on how to use this static classf from spring(org.springframework.util.Assert)
Assert.notNull(validationEventHandler,"ValidationHandler not Injected");

If you consider an object should not be null (or it is a bug) use an assert.
If your method doesn't accept null params say it in the javadoc and use an assert.
You have to check for object != null only if you want to handle the case where the object may be null...
There is a proposal to add new annotations in Java7 to help with null / notnull params:
http://tech.puredanger.com/java7/#jsr308

I'm a fan of "fail fast" code. Ask yourself - are you doing something useful in the case where the parameter is null? If you don't have a clear answer for what your code should do in that case... i.e. - it should never be null in the first place, then ignore it and allow a NullPointerException to be thrown. The calling code will make just as much sense of an NPE as it would an IllegalArgumentException, but it'll be easier for the developer to debug and understand what went wrong if an NPE is thrown rather than your code attempting to execute some other unexpected contingency logic - which ultimately results in the application failing anyway.

Sometimes, you have methods that operate on its parameters that define a symmetric operation:
a.f(b); <-> b.f(a);
If you know b can never be null, you can just swap it. It is most useful for equals:
Instead of foo.equals("bar"); better do "bar".equals(foo);.

Rather than Null Object Pattern -- which has its uses -- you might consider situations where the null object is a bug.
When the exception is thrown, examine the stack trace and work through the bug.

The Google collections framework offers a good and elegant way to achieve the null check.
There is a method in a library class like this:
static <T> T checkNotNull(T e) {
if (e == null) {
throw new NullPointerException();
}
return e;
}
And the usage is (with import static):
...
void foo(int a, Person p) {
if (checkNotNull(p).getAge() > a) {
...
}
else {
...
}
}
...
Or in your example:
checkNotNull(someobject).doCalc();

Null is not a 'problem'. It is an integral part of a complete modeling tool set. Software aims to model the complexity of the world and null bears its burden. Null indicates 'No data' or 'Unknown' in Java and the like. So it is appropriate to use nulls for these purposes. I don't prefer the 'Null object' pattern; I think it rise the 'who will guard
the guardians' problem.
If you ask me what is the name of my girlfriend I'll tell you that I have no girlfriend. In the Java language I'll return null.
An alternative would be to throw meaningful exception to indicate some problem that can't be (or don't want to be) solved right there and delegate it somewhere higher in the stack to retry or report data access error to the user.
For an 'unknown question' give 'unknown answer'. (Be null-safe where this is correct from business point of view) Checking arguments for null once inside a method before usage relieves multiple callers from checking them before a call.
public Photo getPhotoOfThePerson(Person person) {
if (person == null)
return null;
// Grabbing some resources or intensive calculation
// using person object anyhow.
}
Previous leads to normal logic flow to get no photo of a non-existent girlfriend from my photo library.
getPhotoOfThePerson(me.getGirlfriend())
And it fits with new coming Java API (looking forward)
getPhotoByName(me.getGirlfriend()?.getName())
While it is rather 'normal business flow' not to find photo stored into the DB for some person, I used to use pairs like below for some other cases
public static MyEnum parseMyEnum(String value); // throws IllegalArgumentException
public static MyEnum parseMyEnumOrNull(String value);
And don't loathe to type <alt> + <shift> + <j> (generate javadoc in Eclipse) and write three additional words for you public API. This will be more than enough for all but those who don't read documentation.
/**
* #return photo or null
*/
or
/**
* #return photo, never null
*/
This is rather theoretical case and in most cases you should prefer java null safe API (in case it will be released in another 10 years), but NullPointerException is subclass of an Exception. Thus it is a form of Throwable that indicates conditions that a reasonable application might want to catch (javadoc)! To use the first most advantage of exceptions and separate error-handling code from 'regular' code (according to creators of Java) it is appropriate, as for me, to catch NullPointerException.
public Photo getGirlfriendPhoto() {
try {
return appContext.getPhotoDataSource().getPhotoByName(me.getGirlfriend().getName());
} catch (NullPointerException e) {
return null;
}
}
Questions could arise:
Q. What if getPhotoDataSource() returns null?
A. It is up to business logic. If I fail to find a photo album I'll show you no photos. What if appContext is not initialized? This method's business logic puts up with this. If the same logic should be more strict then throwing an exception it is part of the business logic and explicit check for null should be used (case 3). The new Java Null-safe API fits better here to specify selectively what implies and what does not imply to be initialized to be fail-fast in case of programmer errors.
Q. Redundant code could be executed and unnecessary resources could be grabbed.
A. It could take place if getPhotoByName() would try to open a database connection, create PreparedStatement and use the person name as an SQL parameter at last. The approach for an unknown question gives an unknown answer (case 1) works here. Before grabbing resources the method should check parameters and return 'unknown' result if needed.
Q. This approach has a performance penalty due to the try closure opening.
A. Software should be easy to understand and modify firstly. Only after this, one could think about performance, and only if needed! and where needed! (source), and many others).
PS. This approach will be as reasonable to use as the separate error-handling code from "regular" code principle is reasonable to use in some place. Consider the next example:
public SomeValue calculateSomeValueUsingSophisticatedLogic(Predicate predicate) {
try {
Result1 result1 = performSomeCalculation(predicate);
Result2 result2 = performSomeOtherCalculation(result1.getSomeProperty());
Result3 result3 = performThirdCalculation(result2.getSomeProperty());
Result4 result4 = performLastCalculation(result3.getSomeProperty());
return result4.getSomeProperty();
} catch (NullPointerException e) {
return null;
}
}
public SomeValue calculateSomeValueUsingSophisticatedLogic(Predicate predicate) {
SomeValue result = null;
if (predicate != null) {
Result1 result1 = performSomeCalculation(predicate);
if (result1 != null && result1.getSomeProperty() != null) {
Result2 result2 = performSomeOtherCalculation(result1.getSomeProperty());
if (result2 != null && result2.getSomeProperty() != null) {
Result3 result3 = performThirdCalculation(result2.getSomeProperty());
if (result3 != null && result3.getSomeProperty() != null) {
Result4 result4 = performLastCalculation(result3.getSomeProperty());
if (result4 != null) {
result = result4.getSomeProperty();
}
}
}
}
}
return result;
}
PPS. For those fast to downvote (and not so fast to read documentation) I would like to say that I've never caught a null-pointer exception (NPE) in my life. But this possibility was intentionally designed by the Java creators because NPE is a subclass of Exception. We have a precedent in Java history when ThreadDeath is an Error not because it is actually an application error, but solely because it was not intended to be caught! How much NPE fits to be an Error than ThreadDeath! But it is not.
Check for 'No data' only if business logic implies it.
public void updatePersonPhoneNumber(Long personId, String phoneNumber) {
if (personId == null)
return;
DataSource dataSource = appContext.getStuffDataSource();
Person person = dataSource.getPersonById(personId);
if (person != null) {
person.setPhoneNumber(phoneNumber);
dataSource.updatePerson(person);
} else {
Person = new Person(personId);
person.setPhoneNumber(phoneNumber);
dataSource.insertPerson(person);
}
}
and
public void updatePersonPhoneNumber(Long personId, String phoneNumber) {
if (personId == null)
return;
DataSource dataSource = appContext.getStuffDataSource();
Person person = dataSource.getPersonById(personId);
if (person == null)
throw new SomeReasonableUserException("What are you thinking about ???");
person.setPhoneNumber(phoneNumber);
dataSource.updatePerson(person);
}
If appContext or dataSource is not initialized unhandled runtime NullPointerException will kill current thread and will be processed by Thread.defaultUncaughtExceptionHandler (for you to define and use your favorite logger or other notification mechanizm). If not set, ThreadGroup#uncaughtException will print stacktrace to system err. One should monitor application error log and open Jira issue for each unhandled exception which in fact is application error. Programmer should fix bug somewhere in initialization stuff.

Java 7 has a new java.util.Objects utility class on which there is a requireNonNull() method. All this does is throw a NullPointerException if its argument is null, but it cleans up the code a bit. Example:
Objects.requireNonNull(someObject);
someObject.doCalc();
The method is most useful for checking just before an assignment in a constructor, where each use of it can save three lines of code:
Parent(Child child) {
if (child == null) {
throw new NullPointerException("child");
}
this.child = child;
}
becomes
Parent(Child child) {
this.child = Objects.requireNonNull(child, "child");
}

Ultimately, the only way to completely solve this problem is by using a different programming language:
In Objective-C, you can do the equivalent of invoking a method on nil, and absolutely nothing will happen. This makes most null checks unnecessary, but it can make errors much harder to diagnose.
In Nice, a Java-derived language, there are two versions of all types: a potentially-null version and a not-null version. You can only invoke methods on not-null types. Potentially-null types can be converted to not-null types through explicit checking for null. This makes it much easier to know where null checks are necessary and where they aren't.

Common "problem" in Java indeed.
First, my thoughts on this:
I consider that it is bad to "eat" something when NULL was passed where NULL isn't a valid value. If you're not exiting the method with some sort of error then it means nothing went wrong in your method which is not true. Then you probably return null in this case, and in the receiving method you again check for null, and it never ends, and you end up with "if != null", etc..
So, IMHO, null must be a critical error which prevents further execution (that is, where null is not a valid value).
The way I solve this problem is this:
First, I follow this convention:
All public methods / API always check its arguments for null
All private methods do not check for null since they are controlled methods (just let die with nullpointer exception in case it wasn't handled above)
The only other methods which do not check for null are utility methods. They are public, but if you call them for some reason, you know what parameters you pass. This is like trying to boil water in the kettle without providing water...
And finally, in the code, the first line of the public method goes like this:
ValidationUtils.getNullValidator().addParam(plans, "plans").addParam(persons, "persons").validate();
Note that addParam() returns self, so that you can add more parameters to check.
Method validate() will throw checked ValidationException if any of the parameters is null (checked or unchecked is more a design/taste issue, but my ValidationException is checked).
void validate() throws ValidationException;
The message will contain the following text if, for example, "plans" is null:
"Illegal argument value null is encountered for parameter [plans]"
As you can see, the second value in the addParam() method (string) is needed for the user message, because you cannot easily detect passed-in variable name, even with reflection (not subject of this post anyway...).
And yes, we know that beyond this line we will no longer encounter a null value so we just safely invoke methods on those objects.
This way, the code is clean, easy maintainable and readable.

Asking that question points out that you may be interested in error handling strategies. How and where to handle errors is a pervasive architectural question. There are several ways to do this.
My favorite: allow the Exceptions to ripple through - catch them at the 'main loop' or in some other function with the appropriate responsibilities. Checking for error conditions and handling them appropriately can be seen as a specialized responsibility.
Sure do have a look at Aspect Oriented Programming, too - they have neat ways to insert if( o == null ) handleNull() into your bytecode.

In addition to using assert you can use the following:
if (someobject == null) {
// Handle null here then move on.
}
This is slightly better than:
if (someobject != null) {
.....
.....
.....
}

Just don't ever use null. Don't allow it.
In my classes, most fields and local variables have non-null default values, and I add contract statements (always-on asserts) everywhere in the code to make sure this is being enforced (since it's more succinct, and more expressive than letting it come up as an NPE and then having to resolve the line number, etc.).
Once I adopted this practice, I noticed that the problems seemed to fix themselves. You'd catch things much earlier in the development process just by accident and realize you had a weak spot.. and more importantly.. it helps encapsulate different modules' concerns, different modules can 'trust' each other, and no more littering the code with if = null else constructs!
This is defensive programming and results in much cleaner code in the long run. Always sanitize the data, e.g. here by enforcing rigid standards, and the problems go away.
class C {
private final MyType mustBeSet;
public C(MyType mything) {
mustBeSet=Contract.notNull(mything);
}
private String name = "<unknown>";
public void setName(String s) {
name = Contract.notNull(s);
}
}
class Contract {
public static <T> T notNull(T t) { if (t == null) { throw new ContractException("argument must be non-null"); return t; }
}
The contracts are like mini-unit tests which are always running, even in production, and when things fail, you know why, rather than a random NPE you have to somehow figure out.

Guava, a very useful core library by Google, has a nice and useful API to avoid nulls. I find UsingAndAvoidingNullExplained very helpful.
As explained in the wiki:
Optional<T> is a way of replacing a nullable T reference with a
non-null value. An Optional may either contain a non-null T reference
(in which case we say the reference is "present"), or it may contain
nothing (in which case we say the reference is "absent"). It is never
said to "contain null."
Usage:
Optional<Integer> possible = Optional.of(5);
possible.isPresent(); // returns true
possible.get(); // returns 5

This is a very common problem for every Java developer. So there is official support in Java 8 to address these issues without cluttered code.
Java 8 has introduced java.util.Optional<T>. It is a container that may or may not hold a non-null value. Java 8 has given a safer way to handle an object whose value may be null in some of the cases. It is inspired from the ideas of Haskell and Scala.
In a nutshell, the Optional class includes methods to explicitly deal with the cases where a value is present or absent. However, the advantage compared to null references is that the Optional<T> class forces you to think about the case when the value is not present. As a consequence, you can prevent unintended null pointer exceptions.
In above example we have a home service factory that returns a handle to multiple appliances available in the home. But these services may or may not be available/functional; it means it may result in a NullPointerException. Instead of adding a null if condition before using any service, let's wrap it in to Optional<Service>.
WRAPPING TO OPTION<T>
Let's consider a method to get a reference of a service from a factory. Instead of returning the service reference, wrap it with Optional. It lets the API user know that the returned service may or may not available/functional, use defensively
public Optional<Service> getRefrigertorControl() {
Service s = new RefrigeratorService();
//...
return Optional.ofNullable(s);
}
As you see Optional.ofNullable() provides an easy way to get the reference wrapped. There are another ways to get the reference of Optional, either Optional.empty() & Optional.of(). One for returning an empty object instead of retuning null and the other to wrap a non-nullable object, respectively.
SO HOW EXACTLY IT HELPS TO AVOID A NULL CHECK?
Once you have wrapped a reference object, Optional provides many useful methods to invoke methods on a wrapped reference without NPE.
Optional ref = homeServices.getRefrigertorControl();
ref.ifPresent(HomeServices::switchItOn);
Optional.ifPresent invokes the given Consumer with a reference if it is a non-null value. Otherwise, it does nothing.
#FunctionalInterface
public interface Consumer<T>
Represents an operation that accepts a single input argument and returns no result. Unlike most other functional interfaces, Consumer is expected to operate via side-effects.
It is so clean and easy to understand. In the above code example, HomeService.switchOn(Service) gets invoked if the Optional holding reference is non-null.
We use the ternary operator very often for checking null condition and return an alternative value or default value. Optional provides another way to handle the same condition without checking null. Optional.orElse(defaultObj) returns defaultObj if the Optional has a null value. Let's use this in our sample code:
public static Optional<HomeServices> get() {
service = Optional.of(service.orElse(new HomeServices()));
return service;
}
Now HomeServices.get() does same thing, but in a better way. It checks whether the service is already initialized of not. If it is then return the same or create a new New service. Optional<T>.orElse(T) helps to return a default value.
Finally, here is our NPE as well as null check-free code:
import java.util.Optional;
public class HomeServices {
private static final int NOW = 0;
private static Optional<HomeServices> service;
public static Optional<HomeServices> get() {
service = Optional.of(service.orElse(new HomeServices()));
return service;
}
public Optional<Service> getRefrigertorControl() {
Service s = new RefrigeratorService();
//...
return Optional.ofNullable(s);
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
/* Get Home Services handle */
Optional<HomeServices> homeServices = HomeServices.get();
if(homeServices != null) {
Optional<Service> refrigertorControl = homeServices.get().getRefrigertorControl();
refrigertorControl.ifPresent(HomeServices::switchItOn);
}
}
public static void switchItOn(Service s){
//...
}
}
The complete post is NPE as well as Null check-free code … Really?.

I like articles from Nat Pryce. Here are the links:
Avoiding Nulls with Polymorphic Dispatch
Avoiding Nulls with "Tell, Don't Ask" Style
In the articles there is also a link to a Git repository for a Java Maybe Type which I find interesting, but I don't think it alone could decrease the
checking code bloat. After doing some research on the Internet, I think != null code bloat could be decreased mainly by careful design.

I've tried the NullObjectPattern but for me is not always the best way to go. There are sometimes when a "no action" is not appropiate.
NullPointerException is a Runtime exception that means it's developers fault and with enough experience it tells you exactly where is the error.
Now to the answer:
Try to make all your attributes and its accessors as private as possible or avoid to expose them to the clients at all. You can have the argument values in the constructor of course, but by reducing the scope you don't let the client class pass an invalid value. If you need to modify the values, you can always create a new object. You check the values in the constructor only once and in the rest of the methods you can be almost sure that the values are not null.
Of course, experience is the better way to understand and apply this suggestion.
Byte!

Probably the best alternative for Java 8 or newer is to use the Optional class.
Optional stringToUse = Optional.of("optional is there");
stringToUse.ifPresent(System.out::println);
This is especially handy for long chains of possible null values. Example:
Optional<Integer> i = Optional.ofNullable(wsObject.getFoo())
.map(f -> f.getBar())
.map(b -> b.getBaz())
.map(b -> b.getInt());
Example on how to throw exception on null:
Optional optionalCarNull = Optional.ofNullable(someNull);
optionalCarNull.orElseThrow(IllegalStateException::new);
Java 7 introduced the Objects.requireNonNull method which can be handy when something should be checked for non-nullness. Example:
String lowerVal = Objects.requireNonNull(someVar, "input cannot be null or empty").toLowerCase();

May I answer it more generally!
We usually face this issue when the methods get the parameters in the way we not expected (bad method call is programmer's fault). For example: you expect to get an object, instead you get a null. You expect to get an String with at least one character, instead you get an empty String ...
So there is no difference between:
if(object == null){
//you called my method badly!
}
or
if(str.length() == 0){
//you called my method badly again!
}
They both want to make sure that we received valid parameters, before we do any other functions.
As mentioned in some other answers, to avoid above problems you can follow the Design by contract pattern. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_contract.
To implement this pattern in java, you can use core java annotations like javax.annotation.NotNull or use more sophisticated libraries like Hibernate Validator.
Just a sample:
getCustomerAccounts(#NotEmpty String customerId,#Size(min = 1) String accountType)
Now you can safely develop the core function of your method without needing to check input parameters, they guard your methods from unexpected parameters.
You can go a step further and make sure that only valid pojos could be created in your application. (sample from hibernate validator site)
public class Car {
#NotNull
private String manufacturer;
#NotNull
#Size(min = 2, max = 14)
private String licensePlate;
#Min(2)
private int seatCount;
// ...
}

I highly disregard answers that suggest using the null objects in every situation. This pattern may break the contract and bury problems deeper and deeper instead of solving them, not mentioning that used inappropriately will create another pile of boilerplate code that will require future maintenance.
In reality if something returned from a method can be null and the calling code has to make decision upon that, there should an earlier call that ensures the state.
Also keep in mind, that null object pattern will be memory hungry if used without care. For this - the instance of a NullObject should be shared between owners, and not be an unigue instance for each of these.
Also I would not recommend using this pattern where the type is meant to be a primitive type representation - like mathematical entities, that are not scalars: vectors, matrices, complex numbers and POD(Plain Old Data) objects, which are meant to hold state in form of Java built-in types. In the latter case you would end up calling getter methods with arbitrary results. For example what should a NullPerson.getName() method return?
It's worth considering such cases in order to avoid absurd results.

Never initialise variables to null.
If (1) is not possible, initialise all collections and arrays to empty collections/arrays.
Doing this in your own code and you can avoid != null checks.
Most of the time null checks seem to guard loops over collections or arrays, so just initialise them empty, you won't need any null checks.
// Bad
ArrayList<String> lemmings;
String[] names;
void checkLemmings() {
if (lemmings != null) for(lemming: lemmings) {
// do something
}
}
// Good
ArrayList<String> lemmings = new ArrayList<String>();
String[] names = {};
void checkLemmings() {
for(lemming: lemmings) {
// do something
}
}
There is a tiny overhead in this, but it's worth it for cleaner code and less NullPointerExceptions.

This is the most common error occurred for most of the developers.
We have number of ways to handle this.
Approach 1:
org.apache.commons.lang.Validate //using apache framework
notNull(Object object, String message)
Approach 2:
if(someObject!=null){ // simply checking against null
}
Approach 3:
#isNull #Nullable // using annotation based validation
Approach 4:
// by writing static method and calling it across whereever we needed to check the validation
static <T> T isNull(someObject e){
if(e == null){
throw new NullPointerException();
}
return e;
}

Java 8 has introduced a new class Optional in java.util package.
Advantages of Java 8 Optional:
1.) Null checks are not required.
2.) No more NullPointerException at run-time.
3.) We can develop clean and neat APIs.
Optional - A container object which may or may not contain a non-null value. If a value is present, isPresent() will return true and get() will return the value.
For more details find here oracle docs :-
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/Optional.html

Alternatives to returning NULL

/**
* Returns the foo with the matching id in this list
*
* #param id the id of the foo to return
* #return the foo with the matching id in this list
*/
public Foo getFoo(int id)
{
for (Foo foo : list)
{
if (foo.getID() == id)
{
return foo;
}
}
return null;
}
Instead of returning null when foo is not found, should I throw an exception? Does it matter, and is there a "best practices" idiom on the subject? By the way, I know my example is a bit contrived, but I hope you get the idea...
Thanks.
EDIT
Changed code to get Foo based on id to better illustrate a real-world scenario.

Returning null is not only more simple to handle, performs better too. The exceptions must be used to handle exceptional cases.

I'd say it depends on the semantics of your method.
Will foo be almost always found in the list? (for example, if it is a cache that holds a finite amount of objects). If so, then not being found might mean something has gone wrong -- some app initialization failed, for example, or the key is invalid -- and an exception might be justifiable.
In most circumstances, however, I'd return null. Maybe the client knows the object might not be there and has coded logic to handle that case; if you used an exception, that code would be much harder to read, understand, and maintain.
Some APIs actually provide two methods: a find method that may return null, and a get or load method that throws an exception.
Hmmm... when in doubt, err in favor of null :)

Returning null is fine, if it is documented as a valid result.
Another option is the null-object pattern. That is - an instance of Foo that doesn't have any data:
public class Foo {
public static final Foo NULL_FOO = new Foo();
}
and return it instead.

I prefer returning null. This is a perfectly fine result to return from a method, and your code that calls the method should handle null values appropriately. That might mean throwing an exception in your calling code, but I wouldn't do it in this method.
This way, if someone else wants to call your method down the line, they can handle null values differently than you if they choose. If you threw and exception it could potentially force another programmer to alter their code in a way different than what they intended.
Of course, there are some cases where it would make sense to throw an exception if something is null (like, a connection object or something like that, that you actually need to have a value and if you don't then that means something is wrong). But, as a rule of thumb, you should be fine returning null in most cases.

It's best to avoid exceptions if you can, but sometimes you just can't. In this case, what if you had stored null in the list? You can't tell the difference between 'found null' and 'could not find what you wanted'.
There is a pattern, it's called Option Types and it's used a lot in Scala. You either return a container with the item, or a container of a class that says 'I'm empty'. The wiki article will give a better picture.
You could also have a 'does this exist in the collection?' method which returns a bool, then throw an exception from the above code for if you didn't check first.
And just a comment completely unrelated to your actual question. If you implement equals, it should only return true if the two objects are actually considered equal. Therefore the above code must always return the object you pass into it!

Best pactice would be to say in the Javadoc that null is return when no match is found.
Another approach might be to return a List of matches which could be empty (and could have more than one) However I don't like this approach.
Another approach might be to return a NULL_FOO of type Foo value.
I would prefer to just return null.
One way around this is to look at what are you going to do with the value and enrich the function so that the returned value is used in the method and not returned. e.g. if you are going to call a method with the value, just call it in the function which avoids the need to return anything.

This is an old question but I didn't find guava's Optional class mentioned here and also JDK's Optional (from Java 8) which serves the same purpose and has more functionality.
This article is a good overview on the reasons for using guava's Optional. I highly recommend reading it.
Here's an excerpt:
What's the point?
Besides the increase in readability that comes from giving null a
name, the biggest advantage of Optional is its idiot-proof-ness. It
forces you to actively think about the absent case if you want your
program to compile at all, since you have to actively unwrap the
Optional and address that case. Null makes it disturbingly easy to
simply forget things, and though FindBugs helps, we don't think it
addresses the issue nearly as well.
This is especially relevant when you're returning values that may or
may not be "present." You (and others) are far more likely to forget
that other.method(a, b) could return a null value than you're likely
to forget that a could be null when you're implementing other.method.
Returning Optional makes it impossible for callers to forget that
case, since they have to unwrap the object themselves for their code
to compile.
My personal opinion, if that matters at all, is that returning null is not so terrible in an already verbose language like Java. The signature of the method sometimes screams that there can be some sort of null kind of result and using Optional doesn't add anything in terms of semantics anyway. For example:
public Point2D intersect(Line line)
Or in a method that looks up a value in a map by key.
If one calls such a method and performs a null check on the result, it's pretty obvious what is going on (checking for parallel lines or key not found). I would favor returning null lest I bloat my code.
I would always document it in the javadoc though.

majory it depends on the scenarios. If your app is itself producer and consumer of this method then it is completly upto you to decide what to do, Else you need to decide based on usage of the method and Client needs.

Returning null is perfectly acceptable. I would go the extra couple dozen keystrokes and document the possibility of returning null in the JavaDoc.
Throwing checked exception means you have to try/catch or re-throw that exception everywhere your method gets called. An unchecked exception, especially anything other than an NPE, is going to catch people by surprise.

In this case, since you're defining an accessor, it should return null. If it were another method where this method should guarantee a non-null response, an exception would be more appropriate.
As a side note though, rather than calling the sample method a getter it might be more appropriate to name it something like Foo findFoo(Foo f) since you're searching rather than just getting.

I think it's a matter of taste and in this case it also depends on if the list may contain null values. If the list may contain null values, null would also be a valid method argument and you would need to distinguish between returning null (e.g. null was passed, found and returned) or telling the method caller that the passed null value was not found.

This might not answer your question directly but it comes from a few remarks I've gotten from Stackoverflow members on similar topics.
Instead of returning null when foo is not found, should I throw an exception? Does it matter, and is there a "best practices" idiom on the subject? By the way, I know my example is a bit contrived, but I hope you get the idea..."
From what I gather, Exceptions should be thrown from a method when the Exception concerns a parameter given to the method. For example, a method accepting File instances would throw a NullPointerException or an IOException. This is following the idea that there's a contract between the caller and callee that the caller should sent valid objects and take care of them if they're invalid.
Also, you need to decide whether to handle pre- and postconditions. You can place a guard at the beginning of a method to handle parameters and this would save quite a bit of code. However, some view this as an incorrect approach in that some validation, say in a UI, should be done beforehand.
To finish off, it's perfectly valid to return a null object if the intent is to retrieve a a single instance. This is to paraphrase that an object was not found or doesn't exist. When it comes to groups of objects I think the convention is simply to return an empty Collection/List.

I'd say it depends on your app and how the method will be used.
If you expect a "not found" result happen frequently enough that it could negatively affect performance*, then return null, and check for it in the caller.
If "not found" results will be relatively rare or will cause you app give up on the request, then throwing an exception would be fine. Exceptions could make your code easier to read, as you can then guarantee a successful return will produce an object, so you don't have to null-check it.
I subscribe to the opinion that exceptions should be used for exceptional conditions, which is a superset of error conditions. I also have adopted Spring/Hibernate's preference for unchecked exceptions, which avoids burdensome try/catch logic.
* There is not much performance overhead from using exceptions vs. returning null. I just did a quick test, it takes 4ms to call a method a million times that returns null, and only 535ms to another method million times that throws an exception.

Another point of view I haven't read in the other answers is the following:
Does the list contain null's of Foo? If this is the case, one would not know whether the id was found, or whether it was associated with null. In this case:
Throw an exception that the list is not found;
Wrap the result in another object (e.g. a SearchResult, which tells you if the object was found, it's associative id, it's result, or no result if it was not found);
Create the method existsFoo(int id).
Each solution has it's own problems, and it depends on the case which to use:
As others noted, Exceptions are exceptional;
A wrapper, SearchResult, has to be allocated each time you'd like to retry a search. The wrapper can be made mutable, but this introduces a lot of new difficulties and problems;
existsFoo has to search the list which doubles the cost of knowing whether the key exists or not.
Generally I can say:
Is an ID not being found exceptional? Use IllegalArgumentException;
Is the result passed to other classes, used as an object? Use a wrapper, e.g. SearchResult;
Is with getFoo only checked whether it's null or not (it exists or not)? Use another method, existsFoo.

While I agree that coding for null is simple and easy boilerplate programmer conditioning, it adds little value for the complexity introduced. Always assuming non-null references makes for cleaner logic with slightly less code -- you still have to test for failure.
The annotation excerpt below will help you to not fall into the old ways...
Use #Nullable
To eliminate NullPointerExceptions in your codebase, you must be
disciplined about null references. We've been successful at this by
following and enforcing a simple rule:
Every parameter is non-null unless explicitly specified.
The Guava: Google Core Libraries for Java and JSR-305 have simple APIs
to get a nulls under control. Preconditions.checkNotNull can be used
to fast-fail if a null reference is found, and #Nullable can be used
to annotate a parameter that permits the null value:
import static com.google.common.base.Preconditions.checkNotNull;
import static javax.annotation.Nullable;
public class Person {
...
public Person(String firstName, String lastName, #Nullable Phone phone) {
this.firstName = checkNotNull(firstName, "firstName");
this.lastName = checkNotNull(lastName, "lastName");
this.phone = phone;
}
If null is permissible by your class, you can annotate the field or
parameter with #Nullable ... using any #Nullable annotation, like
edu.umd.cs.findbugs.annotations.Nullable or javax.annotation.Nullable.

How to avoid lots of checks for null when using get() on a Java Collection?

I have a statement as follows
getLD().get(cam.getName()).getAGS().get(aG.getName())
getLD(), getAGS() return Java collections
I would not consider it to be an error if getAGS() were empty, nor if the result of getAGS().get(aG.getName()) were empty. However it is rather messy and somewhat of a pain checking for these null conditions.
e.g. if(getLD().get(camp.getName()).getAGS() !=null && getLD().get(cam.getName()).getAGS().get(aG.getName()) != null) {
Can anyone suggest the best way to deal with this? Obviously I could create a variable x = getLD().get(camp.getName()).getAGS() to shorten the code, but is there a way in which I would not have to do the two checks for null?
All help is much appreciated!

IMO, the best strategy is to design your data structures so that there aren't any nulls in the first place. For example, use empty collections or zero length arrays, or "" instead of null. For application classes, consider implementing special instance that you can use instead of null.
A second strategy is to replace use of exposed generic data structures (e.g. maps, lists, arrays) with custom classes. This hides the implementation details inside a class, and allows you to make use of Java's static typing to avoid many of the situations where a null check would be required.
A third strategy is to create a helper class with a bunch of methods that implement common operations; e.g. "get the Cam for an LD". (IMO, this approach is a poor alternative, compared with the others, but at least it reduces the amount of code repetition.)
To the extent that you cannot get rid of the nulls, you've got no option but to explicitly test for them. (There was a proposal to add an "elvis" operator to Java 7 as part of project Coin, but unfortunately it was cut.)

The best way would be to avoid the chain. If you aren't familiar with the Law of Demeter (LoD), in my opinion you should. You've given a perfect example of a message chain that is overly intimate with classes that it has no business knowing anything about.
Law of Demeter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Demeter

The apache commons project has a library called Bean Introspection Utilities (BeanUtils), which looks like it can do what you need. Check out the nested property access section, in the user guide, and look at the BeanUtils class:
http://commons.apache.org/beanutils/
It has utility classes that I think can do what you need.
Another thing to consider: you should try to avoid doing this many levels of nested property access. This is a code smell called "feature envy", where an object wants to use features of another object regularly. Consider creating methods on the top-level object, or find a way to redesign so that the feature you need is shared more readily.

try {
foo().bar().baz();
} catch (NullPointerException e) {
// Check if it was actually an error
}

Code in groovy!.
Not always possible depending on your environment and performance requirments. But its a joy to just type
if (getLD(camp?.GetName())?.getAGS(ag?.GetName()))
Alternativly you could just code what you mean and catch the null pointer exception. In your case this would be much more readable especially of you dont care which element is null.

I think Something is more complext than needed if you require to do
getLD().get(cam.getName()).getAGS().get(aG.getName())
If you need to check if the second collection or the result is null you can do something like:
Map<?,?> firstList= getLD();
Object value = null;
if (firstList!=null && !firstList.isEmpty() && fistList.containsKey(cam.getName())){
Map<?,?> secondList = firstList.get(cam.getName());
if (secondList!=null && !secondList.isEmpty() && secondList.containsKey(aG.getName())){
value = secondList.get(aG.getName());
}
}
if(value != null){
// Do the required operations if the value is not null
}else{
// Do the required operations if the value is null
}
With this code i checked if the first collection is not null, is not empty and if it has the content. The i get the second collection and i repeated the process in the second collection.
Also a method can be created to do this operation:
private Map<?,?> getItem(Map<?,?> map,Object key){
if (map!=null && !map.isEmpty() && map.containsKey(key)){
return map.get(key);
}
return null;
}
and in your code:
Object value = getItem(getItem(getLD(),cam.getName()),aG.getName());
if(value != null){
// Do the required operations if the value is not null
}else{
// Do the required operations if the value is null
}

Avoiding NullPointerException in Java

I use x != null to avoid NullPointerException. Is there an alternative?
if (x != null) {
// ...
}

This to me sounds like a reasonably common problem that junior to intermediate developers tend to face at some point: they either don't know or don't trust the contracts they are participating in and defensively overcheck for nulls. Additionally, when writing their own code, they tend to rely on returning nulls to indicate something thus requiring the caller to check for nulls.
To put this another way, there are two instances where null checking comes up:
Where null is a valid response in terms of the contract; and
Where it isn't a valid response.
(2) is easy. As of Java 1.7 you can use Objects.requireNonNull(foo). (If you are stuck with a previous version then assertions may be a good alternative.)
"Proper" usage of this method would be like below. The method returns the object passed into it and throws a NullPointerException if the object is null. This means that the returned value is always non-null. The method is primarily intended for validating parameters.
public Foo(Bar bar) {
this.bar = Objects.requireNonNull(bar);
}
It can also be used like an assertion though since it throws an exception if the object is null. In both uses, a message can be added which will be shown in the exception. Below is using it like an assertion and providing a message.
Objects.requireNonNull(someobject, "if someobject is null then something is wrong");
someobject.doCalc();
Generally throwing a specific exception like NullPointerException when a value is null but shouldn't be is favorable to throwing a more general exception like AssertionError. This is the approach the Java library takes; favoring NullPointerException over IllegalArgumentException when an argument is not allowed to be null.
(1) is a little harder. If you have no control over the code you're calling then you're stuck. If null is a valid response, you have to check for it.
If it's code that you do control, however (and this is often the case), then it's a different story. Avoid using nulls as a response. With methods that return collections, it's easy: return empty collections (or arrays) instead of nulls pretty much all the time.
With non-collections it might be harder. Consider this as an example: if you have these interfaces:
public interface Action {
void doSomething();
}
public interface Parser {
Action findAction(String userInput);
}
where Parser takes raw user input and finds something to do, perhaps if you're implementing a command line interface for something. Now you might make the contract that it returns null if there's no appropriate action. That leads the null checking you're talking about.
An alternative solution is to never return null and instead use the Null Object pattern:
public class MyParser implements Parser {
private static Action DO_NOTHING = new Action() {
public void doSomething() { /* do nothing */ }
};
public Action findAction(String userInput) {
// ...
if ( /* we can't find any actions */ ) {
return DO_NOTHING;
}
}
}
Compare:
Parser parser = ParserFactory.getParser();
if (parser == null) {
// now what?
// this would be an example of where null isn't (or shouldn't be) a valid response
}
Action action = parser.findAction(someInput);
if (action == null) {
// do nothing
} else {
action.doSomething();
}
to
ParserFactory.getParser().findAction(someInput).doSomething();
which is a much better design because it leads to more concise code.
That said, perhaps it is entirely appropriate for the findAction() method to throw an Exception with a meaningful error message -- especially in this case where you are relying on user input. It would be much better for the findAction method to throw an Exception than for the calling method to blow up with a simple NullPointerException with no explanation.
try {
ParserFactory.getParser().findAction(someInput).doSomething();
} catch(ActionNotFoundException anfe) {
userConsole.err(anfe.getMessage());
}
Or if you think the try/catch mechanism is too ugly, rather than Do Nothing your default action should provide feedback to the user.
public Action findAction(final String userInput) {
/* Code to return requested Action if found */
return new Action() {
public void doSomething() {
userConsole.err("Action not found: " + userInput);
}
}
}

If you use (or planning to use) a Java IDE like JetBrains IntelliJ IDEA, Eclipse or Netbeans or a tool like findbugs then you can use annotations to solve this problem.
Basically, you've got #Nullable and #NotNull.
You can use in method and parameters, like this:
#NotNull public static String helloWorld() {
return "Hello World";
}
or
#Nullable public static String helloWorld() {
return "Hello World";
}
The second example won't compile (in IntelliJ IDEA).
When you use the first helloWorld() function in another piece of code:
public static void main(String[] args)
{
String result = helloWorld();
if(result != null) {
System.out.println(result);
}
}
Now the IntelliJ IDEA compiler will tell you that the check is useless, since the helloWorld() function won't return null, ever.
Using parameter
void someMethod(#NotNull someParameter) { }
if you write something like:
someMethod(null);
This won't compile.
Last example using #Nullable
#Nullable iWantToDestroyEverything() { return null; }
Doing this
iWantToDestroyEverything().something();
And you can be sure that this won't happen. :)
It's a nice way to let the compiler check something more than it usually does and to enforce your contracts to be stronger. Unfortunately, it's not supported by all the compilers.
In IntelliJ IDEA 10.5 and on, they added support for any other #Nullable #NotNull implementations.
See blog post More flexible and configurable #Nullable/#NotNull annotations.

If null-values are not allowed
If your method is called externally, start with something like this:
public void method(Object object) {
if (object == null) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("...");
}
Then, in the rest of that method, you'll know that object is not null.
If it is an internal method (not part of an API), just document that it cannot be null, and that's it.
Example:
public String getFirst3Chars(String text) {
return text.subString(0, 3);
}
However, if your method just passes the value on, and the next method passes it on etc. it could get problematic. In that case you may want to check the argument as above.
If null is allowed
This really depends. If find that I often do something like this:
if (object == null) {
// something
} else {
// something else
}
So I branch, and do two completely different things. There is no ugly code snippet, because I really need to do two different things depending on the data. For example, should I work on the input, or should I calculate a good default value?
It's actually rare for me to use the idiom "if (object != null && ...".
It may be easier to give you examples, if you show examples of where you typically use the idiom.

Wow, I almost hate to add another answer when we have 57 different ways to recommend the NullObject pattern, but I think that some people interested in this question may like to know that there is a proposal on the table for Java 7 to add "null-safe handling"—a streamlined syntax for if-not-equal-null logic.
The example given by Alex Miller looks like this:
public String getPostcode(Person person) {
return person?.getAddress()?.getPostcode();
}
The ?. means only de-reference the left identifier if it is not null, otherwise evaluate the remainder of the expression as null. Some people, like Java Posse member Dick Wall and the voters at Devoxx really love this proposal, but there is opposition too, on the grounds that it will actually encourage more use of null as a sentinel value.
Update: An official proposal for a null-safe operator in Java 7 has been submitted under Project Coin. The syntax is a little different than the example above, but it's the same notion.
Update: The null-safe operator proposal didn't make it into Project Coin. So, you won't be seeing this syntax in Java 7.

If undefined values are not permitted:
You might configure your IDE to warn you about potential null dereferencing. E.g. in Eclipse, see Preferences > Java > Compiler > Errors/Warnings/Null analysis.
If undefined values are permitted:
If you want to define a new API where undefined values make sense, use the Option Pattern (may be familiar from functional languages). It has the following advantages:
It is stated explicitly in the API whether an input or output exists or not.
The compiler forces you to handle the "undefined" case.
Option is a monad, so there is no need for verbose null checking, just use map/foreach/getOrElse or a similar combinator to safely use the value (example).
Java 8 has a built-in Optional class (recommended); for earlier versions, there are library alternatives, for example Guava's Optional or FunctionalJava's Option. But like many functional-style patterns, using Option in Java (even 8) results in quite some boilerplate, which you can reduce using a less verbose JVM language, e.g. Scala or Xtend.
If you have to deal with an API which might return nulls, you can't do much in Java. Xtend and Groovy have the Elvis operator ?: and the null-safe dereference operator ?., but note that this returns null in case of a null reference, so it just "defers" the proper handling of null.

Only for this situation -
Not checking if a variable is null before invoking an equals method (a string compare example below):
if ( foo.equals("bar") ) {
// ...
}
will result in a NullPointerException if foo doesn't exist.
You can avoid that if you compare your Strings like this:
if ( "bar".equals(foo) ) {
// ...
}

With Java 8 comes the new java.util.Optional class that arguably solves some of the problem. One can at least say that it improves the readability of the code, and in the case of public APIs make the API's contract clearer to the client developer.
They work like that:
An optional object for a given type (Fruit) is created as the return type of a method. It can be empty or contain a Fruit object:
public static Optional<Fruit> find(String name, List<Fruit> fruits) {
for (Fruit fruit : fruits) {
if (fruit.getName().equals(name)) {
return Optional.of(fruit);
}
}
return Optional.empty();
}
Now look at this code where we search a list of Fruit (fruits) for a given Fruit instance:
Optional<Fruit> found = find("lemon", fruits);
if (found.isPresent()) {
Fruit fruit = found.get();
String name = fruit.getName();
}
You can use the map() operator to perform a computation on--or extract a value from--an optional object. orElse() lets you provide a fallback for missing values.
String nameOrNull = find("lemon", fruits)
.map(f -> f.getName())
.orElse("empty-name");
Of course, the check for null/empty value is still necessary, but at least the developer is conscious that the value might be empty and the risk of forgetting to check is limited.
In an API built from scratch using Optional whenever a return value might be empty, and returning a plain object only when it cannot be null (convention), the client code might abandon null checks on simple object return values...
Of course Optional could also be used as a method argument, perhaps a better way to indicate optional arguments than 5 or 10 overloading methods in some cases.
Optional offers other convenient methods, such as orElse that allow the use of a default value, and ifPresent that works with lambda expressions.
I invite you to read this article (my main source for writing this answer) in which the NullPointerException (and in general null pointer) problematic as well as the (partial) solution brought by Optional are well explained: Java Optional Objects.

Depending on what kind of objects you are checking you may be able to use some of the classes in the apache commons such as: apache commons lang and apache commons collections
Example:
String foo;
...
if( StringUtils.isBlank( foo ) ) {
///do something
}
or (depending on what you need to check):
String foo;
...
if( StringUtils.isEmpty( foo ) ) {
///do something
}
The StringUtils class is only one of many; there are quite a few good classes in the commons that do null safe manipulation.
Here follows an example of how you can use null vallidation in JAVA when you include apache library(commons-lang-2.4.jar)
public DOCUMENT read(String xml, ValidationEventHandler validationEventHandler) {
Validate.notNull(validationEventHandler,"ValidationHandler not Injected");
return read(new StringReader(xml), true, validationEventHandler);
}
And if you are using Spring, Spring also has the same functionality in its package, see library(spring-2.4.6.jar)
Example on how to use this static classf from spring(org.springframework.util.Assert)
Assert.notNull(validationEventHandler,"ValidationHandler not Injected");

If you consider an object should not be null (or it is a bug) use an assert.
If your method doesn't accept null params say it in the javadoc and use an assert.
You have to check for object != null only if you want to handle the case where the object may be null...
There is a proposal to add new annotations in Java7 to help with null / notnull params:
http://tech.puredanger.com/java7/#jsr308

I'm a fan of "fail fast" code. Ask yourself - are you doing something useful in the case where the parameter is null? If you don't have a clear answer for what your code should do in that case... i.e. - it should never be null in the first place, then ignore it and allow a NullPointerException to be thrown. The calling code will make just as much sense of an NPE as it would an IllegalArgumentException, but it'll be easier for the developer to debug and understand what went wrong if an NPE is thrown rather than your code attempting to execute some other unexpected contingency logic - which ultimately results in the application failing anyway.

Sometimes, you have methods that operate on its parameters that define a symmetric operation:
a.f(b); <-> b.f(a);
If you know b can never be null, you can just swap it. It is most useful for equals:
Instead of foo.equals("bar"); better do "bar".equals(foo);.

Rather than Null Object Pattern -- which has its uses -- you might consider situations where the null object is a bug.
When the exception is thrown, examine the stack trace and work through the bug.

The Google collections framework offers a good and elegant way to achieve the null check.
There is a method in a library class like this:
static <T> T checkNotNull(T e) {
if (e == null) {
throw new NullPointerException();
}
return e;
}
And the usage is (with import static):
...
void foo(int a, Person p) {
if (checkNotNull(p).getAge() > a) {
...
}
else {
...
}
}
...
Or in your example:
checkNotNull(someobject).doCalc();

Null is not a 'problem'. It is an integral part of a complete modeling tool set. Software aims to model the complexity of the world and null bears its burden. Null indicates 'No data' or 'Unknown' in Java and the like. So it is appropriate to use nulls for these purposes. I don't prefer the 'Null object' pattern; I think it rise the 'who will guard
the guardians' problem.
If you ask me what is the name of my girlfriend I'll tell you that I have no girlfriend. In the Java language I'll return null.
An alternative would be to throw meaningful exception to indicate some problem that can't be (or don't want to be) solved right there and delegate it somewhere higher in the stack to retry or report data access error to the user.
For an 'unknown question' give 'unknown answer'. (Be null-safe where this is correct from business point of view) Checking arguments for null once inside a method before usage relieves multiple callers from checking them before a call.
public Photo getPhotoOfThePerson(Person person) {
if (person == null)
return null;
// Grabbing some resources or intensive calculation
// using person object anyhow.
}
Previous leads to normal logic flow to get no photo of a non-existent girlfriend from my photo library.
getPhotoOfThePerson(me.getGirlfriend())
And it fits with new coming Java API (looking forward)
getPhotoByName(me.getGirlfriend()?.getName())
While it is rather 'normal business flow' not to find photo stored into the DB for some person, I used to use pairs like below for some other cases
public static MyEnum parseMyEnum(String value); // throws IllegalArgumentException
public static MyEnum parseMyEnumOrNull(String value);
And don't loathe to type <alt> + <shift> + <j> (generate javadoc in Eclipse) and write three additional words for you public API. This will be more than enough for all but those who don't read documentation.
/**
* #return photo or null
*/
or
/**
* #return photo, never null
*/
This is rather theoretical case and in most cases you should prefer java null safe API (in case it will be released in another 10 years), but NullPointerException is subclass of an Exception. Thus it is a form of Throwable that indicates conditions that a reasonable application might want to catch (javadoc)! To use the first most advantage of exceptions and separate error-handling code from 'regular' code (according to creators of Java) it is appropriate, as for me, to catch NullPointerException.
public Photo getGirlfriendPhoto() {
try {
return appContext.getPhotoDataSource().getPhotoByName(me.getGirlfriend().getName());
} catch (NullPointerException e) {
return null;
}
}
Questions could arise:
Q. What if getPhotoDataSource() returns null?
A. It is up to business logic. If I fail to find a photo album I'll show you no photos. What if appContext is not initialized? This method's business logic puts up with this. If the same logic should be more strict then throwing an exception it is part of the business logic and explicit check for null should be used (case 3). The new Java Null-safe API fits better here to specify selectively what implies and what does not imply to be initialized to be fail-fast in case of programmer errors.
Q. Redundant code could be executed and unnecessary resources could be grabbed.
A. It could take place if getPhotoByName() would try to open a database connection, create PreparedStatement and use the person name as an SQL parameter at last. The approach for an unknown question gives an unknown answer (case 1) works here. Before grabbing resources the method should check parameters and return 'unknown' result if needed.
Q. This approach has a performance penalty due to the try closure opening.
A. Software should be easy to understand and modify firstly. Only after this, one could think about performance, and only if needed! and where needed! (source), and many others).
PS. This approach will be as reasonable to use as the separate error-handling code from "regular" code principle is reasonable to use in some place. Consider the next example:
public SomeValue calculateSomeValueUsingSophisticatedLogic(Predicate predicate) {
try {
Result1 result1 = performSomeCalculation(predicate);
Result2 result2 = performSomeOtherCalculation(result1.getSomeProperty());
Result3 result3 = performThirdCalculation(result2.getSomeProperty());
Result4 result4 = performLastCalculation(result3.getSomeProperty());
return result4.getSomeProperty();
} catch (NullPointerException e) {
return null;
}
}
public SomeValue calculateSomeValueUsingSophisticatedLogic(Predicate predicate) {
SomeValue result = null;
if (predicate != null) {
Result1 result1 = performSomeCalculation(predicate);
if (result1 != null && result1.getSomeProperty() != null) {
Result2 result2 = performSomeOtherCalculation(result1.getSomeProperty());
if (result2 != null && result2.getSomeProperty() != null) {
Result3 result3 = performThirdCalculation(result2.getSomeProperty());
if (result3 != null && result3.getSomeProperty() != null) {
Result4 result4 = performLastCalculation(result3.getSomeProperty());
if (result4 != null) {
result = result4.getSomeProperty();
}
}
}
}
}
return result;
}
PPS. For those fast to downvote (and not so fast to read documentation) I would like to say that I've never caught a null-pointer exception (NPE) in my life. But this possibility was intentionally designed by the Java creators because NPE is a subclass of Exception. We have a precedent in Java history when ThreadDeath is an Error not because it is actually an application error, but solely because it was not intended to be caught! How much NPE fits to be an Error than ThreadDeath! But it is not.
Check for 'No data' only if business logic implies it.
public void updatePersonPhoneNumber(Long personId, String phoneNumber) {
if (personId == null)
return;
DataSource dataSource = appContext.getStuffDataSource();
Person person = dataSource.getPersonById(personId);
if (person != null) {
person.setPhoneNumber(phoneNumber);
dataSource.updatePerson(person);
} else {
Person = new Person(personId);
person.setPhoneNumber(phoneNumber);
dataSource.insertPerson(person);
}
}
and
public void updatePersonPhoneNumber(Long personId, String phoneNumber) {
if (personId == null)
return;
DataSource dataSource = appContext.getStuffDataSource();
Person person = dataSource.getPersonById(personId);
if (person == null)
throw new SomeReasonableUserException("What are you thinking about ???");
person.setPhoneNumber(phoneNumber);
dataSource.updatePerson(person);
}
If appContext or dataSource is not initialized unhandled runtime NullPointerException will kill current thread and will be processed by Thread.defaultUncaughtExceptionHandler (for you to define and use your favorite logger or other notification mechanizm). If not set, ThreadGroup#uncaughtException will print stacktrace to system err. One should monitor application error log and open Jira issue for each unhandled exception which in fact is application error. Programmer should fix bug somewhere in initialization stuff.

Java 7 has a new java.util.Objects utility class on which there is a requireNonNull() method. All this does is throw a NullPointerException if its argument is null, but it cleans up the code a bit. Example:
Objects.requireNonNull(someObject);
someObject.doCalc();
The method is most useful for checking just before an assignment in a constructor, where each use of it can save three lines of code:
Parent(Child child) {
if (child == null) {
throw new NullPointerException("child");
}
this.child = child;
}
becomes
Parent(Child child) {
this.child = Objects.requireNonNull(child, "child");
}

Ultimately, the only way to completely solve this problem is by using a different programming language:
In Objective-C, you can do the equivalent of invoking a method on nil, and absolutely nothing will happen. This makes most null checks unnecessary, but it can make errors much harder to diagnose.
In Nice, a Java-derived language, there are two versions of all types: a potentially-null version and a not-null version. You can only invoke methods on not-null types. Potentially-null types can be converted to not-null types through explicit checking for null. This makes it much easier to know where null checks are necessary and where they aren't.

Common "problem" in Java indeed.
First, my thoughts on this:
I consider that it is bad to "eat" something when NULL was passed where NULL isn't a valid value. If you're not exiting the method with some sort of error then it means nothing went wrong in your method which is not true. Then you probably return null in this case, and in the receiving method you again check for null, and it never ends, and you end up with "if != null", etc..
So, IMHO, null must be a critical error which prevents further execution (that is, where null is not a valid value).
The way I solve this problem is this:
First, I follow this convention:
All public methods / API always check its arguments for null
All private methods do not check for null since they are controlled methods (just let die with nullpointer exception in case it wasn't handled above)
The only other methods which do not check for null are utility methods. They are public, but if you call them for some reason, you know what parameters you pass. This is like trying to boil water in the kettle without providing water...
And finally, in the code, the first line of the public method goes like this:
ValidationUtils.getNullValidator().addParam(plans, "plans").addParam(persons, "persons").validate();
Note that addParam() returns self, so that you can add more parameters to check.
Method validate() will throw checked ValidationException if any of the parameters is null (checked or unchecked is more a design/taste issue, but my ValidationException is checked).
void validate() throws ValidationException;
The message will contain the following text if, for example, "plans" is null:
"Illegal argument value null is encountered for parameter [plans]"
As you can see, the second value in the addParam() method (string) is needed for the user message, because you cannot easily detect passed-in variable name, even with reflection (not subject of this post anyway...).
And yes, we know that beyond this line we will no longer encounter a null value so we just safely invoke methods on those objects.
This way, the code is clean, easy maintainable and readable.

Asking that question points out that you may be interested in error handling strategies. How and where to handle errors is a pervasive architectural question. There are several ways to do this.
My favorite: allow the Exceptions to ripple through - catch them at the 'main loop' or in some other function with the appropriate responsibilities. Checking for error conditions and handling them appropriately can be seen as a specialized responsibility.
Sure do have a look at Aspect Oriented Programming, too - they have neat ways to insert if( o == null ) handleNull() into your bytecode.

In addition to using assert you can use the following:
if (someobject == null) {
// Handle null here then move on.
}
This is slightly better than:
if (someobject != null) {
.....
.....
.....
}

Just don't ever use null. Don't allow it.
In my classes, most fields and local variables have non-null default values, and I add contract statements (always-on asserts) everywhere in the code to make sure this is being enforced (since it's more succinct, and more expressive than letting it come up as an NPE and then having to resolve the line number, etc.).
Once I adopted this practice, I noticed that the problems seemed to fix themselves. You'd catch things much earlier in the development process just by accident and realize you had a weak spot.. and more importantly.. it helps encapsulate different modules' concerns, different modules can 'trust' each other, and no more littering the code with if = null else constructs!
This is defensive programming and results in much cleaner code in the long run. Always sanitize the data, e.g. here by enforcing rigid standards, and the problems go away.
class C {
private final MyType mustBeSet;
public C(MyType mything) {
mustBeSet=Contract.notNull(mything);
}
private String name = "<unknown>";
public void setName(String s) {
name = Contract.notNull(s);
}
}
class Contract {
public static <T> T notNull(T t) { if (t == null) { throw new ContractException("argument must be non-null"); return t; }
}
The contracts are like mini-unit tests which are always running, even in production, and when things fail, you know why, rather than a random NPE you have to somehow figure out.

Guava, a very useful core library by Google, has a nice and useful API to avoid nulls. I find UsingAndAvoidingNullExplained very helpful.
As explained in the wiki:
Optional<T> is a way of replacing a nullable T reference with a
non-null value. An Optional may either contain a non-null T reference
(in which case we say the reference is "present"), or it may contain
nothing (in which case we say the reference is "absent"). It is never
said to "contain null."
Usage:
Optional<Integer> possible = Optional.of(5);
possible.isPresent(); // returns true
possible.get(); // returns 5

This is a very common problem for every Java developer. So there is official support in Java 8 to address these issues without cluttered code.
Java 8 has introduced java.util.Optional<T>. It is a container that may or may not hold a non-null value. Java 8 has given a safer way to handle an object whose value may be null in some of the cases. It is inspired from the ideas of Haskell and Scala.
In a nutshell, the Optional class includes methods to explicitly deal with the cases where a value is present or absent. However, the advantage compared to null references is that the Optional<T> class forces you to think about the case when the value is not present. As a consequence, you can prevent unintended null pointer exceptions.
In above example we have a home service factory that returns a handle to multiple appliances available in the home. But these services may or may not be available/functional; it means it may result in a NullPointerException. Instead of adding a null if condition before using any service, let's wrap it in to Optional<Service>.
WRAPPING TO OPTION<T>
Let's consider a method to get a reference of a service from a factory. Instead of returning the service reference, wrap it with Optional. It lets the API user know that the returned service may or may not available/functional, use defensively
public Optional<Service> getRefrigertorControl() {
Service s = new RefrigeratorService();
//...
return Optional.ofNullable(s);
}
As you see Optional.ofNullable() provides an easy way to get the reference wrapped. There are another ways to get the reference of Optional, either Optional.empty() & Optional.of(). One for returning an empty object instead of retuning null and the other to wrap a non-nullable object, respectively.
SO HOW EXACTLY IT HELPS TO AVOID A NULL CHECK?
Once you have wrapped a reference object, Optional provides many useful methods to invoke methods on a wrapped reference without NPE.
Optional ref = homeServices.getRefrigertorControl();
ref.ifPresent(HomeServices::switchItOn);
Optional.ifPresent invokes the given Consumer with a reference if it is a non-null value. Otherwise, it does nothing.
#FunctionalInterface
public interface Consumer<T>
Represents an operation that accepts a single input argument and returns no result. Unlike most other functional interfaces, Consumer is expected to operate via side-effects.
It is so clean and easy to understand. In the above code example, HomeService.switchOn(Service) gets invoked if the Optional holding reference is non-null.
We use the ternary operator very often for checking null condition and return an alternative value or default value. Optional provides another way to handle the same condition without checking null. Optional.orElse(defaultObj) returns defaultObj if the Optional has a null value. Let's use this in our sample code:
public static Optional<HomeServices> get() {
service = Optional.of(service.orElse(new HomeServices()));
return service;
}
Now HomeServices.get() does same thing, but in a better way. It checks whether the service is already initialized of not. If it is then return the same or create a new New service. Optional<T>.orElse(T) helps to return a default value.
Finally, here is our NPE as well as null check-free code:
import java.util.Optional;
public class HomeServices {
private static final int NOW = 0;
private static Optional<HomeServices> service;
public static Optional<HomeServices> get() {
service = Optional.of(service.orElse(new HomeServices()));
return service;
}
public Optional<Service> getRefrigertorControl() {
Service s = new RefrigeratorService();
//...
return Optional.ofNullable(s);
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
/* Get Home Services handle */
Optional<HomeServices> homeServices = HomeServices.get();
if(homeServices != null) {
Optional<Service> refrigertorControl = homeServices.get().getRefrigertorControl();
refrigertorControl.ifPresent(HomeServices::switchItOn);
}
}
public static void switchItOn(Service s){
//...
}
}
The complete post is NPE as well as Null check-free code … Really?.

I like articles from Nat Pryce. Here are the links:
Avoiding Nulls with Polymorphic Dispatch
Avoiding Nulls with "Tell, Don't Ask" Style
In the articles there is also a link to a Git repository for a Java Maybe Type which I find interesting, but I don't think it alone could decrease the
checking code bloat. After doing some research on the Internet, I think != null code bloat could be decreased mainly by careful design.

I've tried the NullObjectPattern but for me is not always the best way to go. There are sometimes when a "no action" is not appropiate.
NullPointerException is a Runtime exception that means it's developers fault and with enough experience it tells you exactly where is the error.
Now to the answer:
Try to make all your attributes and its accessors as private as possible or avoid to expose them to the clients at all. You can have the argument values in the constructor of course, but by reducing the scope you don't let the client class pass an invalid value. If you need to modify the values, you can always create a new object. You check the values in the constructor only once and in the rest of the methods you can be almost sure that the values are not null.
Of course, experience is the better way to understand and apply this suggestion.
Byte!

Probably the best alternative for Java 8 or newer is to use the Optional class.
Optional stringToUse = Optional.of("optional is there");
stringToUse.ifPresent(System.out::println);
This is especially handy for long chains of possible null values. Example:
Optional<Integer> i = Optional.ofNullable(wsObject.getFoo())
.map(f -> f.getBar())
.map(b -> b.getBaz())
.map(b -> b.getInt());
Example on how to throw exception on null:
Optional optionalCarNull = Optional.ofNullable(someNull);
optionalCarNull.orElseThrow(IllegalStateException::new);
Java 7 introduced the Objects.requireNonNull method which can be handy when something should be checked for non-nullness. Example:
String lowerVal = Objects.requireNonNull(someVar, "input cannot be null or empty").toLowerCase();

May I answer it more generally!
We usually face this issue when the methods get the parameters in the way we not expected (bad method call is programmer's fault). For example: you expect to get an object, instead you get a null. You expect to get an String with at least one character, instead you get an empty String ...
So there is no difference between:
if(object == null){
//you called my method badly!
}
or
if(str.length() == 0){
//you called my method badly again!
}
They both want to make sure that we received valid parameters, before we do any other functions.
As mentioned in some other answers, to avoid above problems you can follow the Design by contract pattern. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_contract.
To implement this pattern in java, you can use core java annotations like javax.annotation.NotNull or use more sophisticated libraries like Hibernate Validator.
Just a sample:
getCustomerAccounts(#NotEmpty String customerId,#Size(min = 1) String accountType)
Now you can safely develop the core function of your method without needing to check input parameters, they guard your methods from unexpected parameters.
You can go a step further and make sure that only valid pojos could be created in your application. (sample from hibernate validator site)
public class Car {
#NotNull
private String manufacturer;
#NotNull
#Size(min = 2, max = 14)
private String licensePlate;
#Min(2)
private int seatCount;
// ...
}

I highly disregard answers that suggest using the null objects in every situation. This pattern may break the contract and bury problems deeper and deeper instead of solving them, not mentioning that used inappropriately will create another pile of boilerplate code that will require future maintenance.
In reality if something returned from a method can be null and the calling code has to make decision upon that, there should an earlier call that ensures the state.
Also keep in mind, that null object pattern will be memory hungry if used without care. For this - the instance of a NullObject should be shared between owners, and not be an unigue instance for each of these.
Also I would not recommend using this pattern where the type is meant to be a primitive type representation - like mathematical entities, that are not scalars: vectors, matrices, complex numbers and POD(Plain Old Data) objects, which are meant to hold state in form of Java built-in types. In the latter case you would end up calling getter methods with arbitrary results. For example what should a NullPerson.getName() method return?
It's worth considering such cases in order to avoid absurd results.

Never initialise variables to null.
If (1) is not possible, initialise all collections and arrays to empty collections/arrays.
Doing this in your own code and you can avoid != null checks.
Most of the time null checks seem to guard loops over collections or arrays, so just initialise them empty, you won't need any null checks.
// Bad
ArrayList<String> lemmings;
String[] names;
void checkLemmings() {
if (lemmings != null) for(lemming: lemmings) {
// do something
}
}
// Good
ArrayList<String> lemmings = new ArrayList<String>();
String[] names = {};
void checkLemmings() {
for(lemming: lemmings) {
// do something
}
}
There is a tiny overhead in this, but it's worth it for cleaner code and less NullPointerExceptions.

This is the most common error occurred for most of the developers.
We have number of ways to handle this.
Approach 1:
org.apache.commons.lang.Validate //using apache framework
notNull(Object object, String message)
Approach 2:
if(someObject!=null){ // simply checking against null
}
Approach 3:
#isNull #Nullable // using annotation based validation
Approach 4:
// by writing static method and calling it across whereever we needed to check the validation
static <T> T isNull(someObject e){
if(e == null){
throw new NullPointerException();
}
return e;
}

Java 8 has introduced a new class Optional in java.util package.
Advantages of Java 8 Optional:
1.) Null checks are not required.
2.) No more NullPointerException at run-time.
3.) We can develop clean and neat APIs.
Optional - A container object which may or may not contain a non-null value. If a value is present, isPresent() will return true and get() will return the value.
For more details find here oracle docs :-
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/Optional.html

We Keep Coding

Java is a programming language and computing platform first released by Sun Microsystems in 1995.

Checking all function parameter in all the functions - java

Returning null means the caller must ALWAYS check the result from your method. Meaning MORE miserable null checks. Consider using the NullObject pattern instead, where you return a valid object but having empty operations. I.e. an empty list if a collection is returned or similar.

Related

Null object design pattern Vs null object check

Avoid duplicated code 'cause of null objects? [duplicate]

Alternatives to returning NULL

How to avoid lots of checks for null when using get() on a Java Collection?

Avoiding NullPointerException in Java

Categories

Resources