Why should Java 8's Optional not be used in arguments
I've read on many Web sites Optional should be used as a return type only, and not used in method arguments. I'm struggling to find a logical reason why. For example I have a piece of logic which has 2 optional parameters. Therefore I think it would make sense to write my method signature like this (solution 1):
public int calculateSomething(Optional<String> p1, Optional<BigDecimal> p2 {
// my logic
}
Many web pages specify Optional should not be used as method arguments. With this in mind, I could use the following method signature and add a clear Javadoc comment to specify that the arguments may be null, hoping future maintainers will read the Javadoc and therefore always carry out null checks prior to using the arguments (solution 2):
public int calculateSomething(String p1, BigDecimal p2) {
// my logic
}
Alternatively I could replace my method with four public methods to provide a nicer interface and make it more obvious p1 and p2 are optional (solution 3):
public int calculateSomething() {
calculateSomething(null, null);
}
public int calculateSomething(String p1) {
calculateSomething(p1, null);
}
public int calculateSomething(BigDecimal p2) {
calculateSomething(null, p2);
}
public int calculateSomething(String p1, BigDecimal p2) {
// my logic
}
Now I try writing the code of the class which invokes this piece of logic for each approach. I first retrieve the two input parameters from another object which returns Optional s and then, I invoke calculateSomething . Therefore, if solution 1 is used the calling code would look like this:
Optional<String> p1 = otherObject.getP1();
Optional<BigInteger> p2 = otherObject.getP2();
int result = myObject.calculateSomething(p1, p2);
if solution 2 is used, the calling code would look like this:
Optional<String> p1 = otherObject.getP1();
Optional<BigInteger> p2 = otherObject.getP2();
int result = myObject.calculateSomething(p1.orElse(null), p2.orElse(null));
if solution 3 is applied, I could use the code above or I could use the following (but it's significantly more code):
Optional<String> p1 = otherObject.getP1();
Optional<BigInteger> p2 = otherObject.getP2();
int result;
if (p1.isPresent()) {
if (p2.isPresent()) {
result = myObject.calculateSomething(p1, p2);
} else {
result = myObject.calculateSomething(p1);
}
} else {
if (p2.isPresent()) {
result = myObject.calculateSomething(p2);
} else {
result = myObject.calculateSomething();
}
}
So my question is: Why is it considered bad practice to use Optional s as method arguments (see solution 1)? It looks like the most readable solution to me and makes it most obvious that the parameters could be empty/null to future maintainers. (I'm aware the designers of Optional intended it to only be used as a return type, but I can't find any logical reasons not to use it in this scenario).
Oh, those coding styles are to be taken with a bit of salt.
In general: Optional unifies two states, which have to be unraveled. Hence better suited for result than input, for the complexity of the data flow.
There are almost no good reasons for not using Optional as parameters. The arguments against this rely on arguments from authority (see Brian Goetz - his argument is we can't enforce non null optionals) or that the Optional arguments may be null (essentially the same argument). Of course, any reference in Java can be null, we need to encourage rules being enforced by the compiler, not programmers memory (which is problematic and does not scale).
Functional programming languages encourage Optional parameters. One of the best ways of using this is to have multiple optional parameters and using liftM2 to use a function assuming the parameters are not empty and returning an optional (see http://www.functionaljava.org/javadoc/4.4/functionaljava/fj/data/Option.html#liftM2-fj.F-). Java 8 has unfortunately implemented a very limited library supporting optional.
As Java programmers we should only be using null to interact with legacy libraries.
链接地址: http://www.djcxy.com/p/8856.html上一篇: Java方法中的副作用