Is there a better way to do an empty check in Java? [duplicate] The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara The Ask Question Wizard is Live! Data science time! April 2019 and salary with experienceHow to check multiple objects for nullity?Check chains of “get” calls for nullHow better refactor chain of methods that can return null in java?Check if last getter in method chain is not nullTry-Catch Instead of Null Check When Using Several Getterstry/catch vs null check in javaTry Catch Performance JavaIs Java “pass-by-reference” or “pass-by-value”?How do I efficiently iterate over each entry in a Java Map?What is the difference between public, protected, package-private and private in Java?Fastest way to determine if an integer's square root is an integerHow do I read / convert an InputStream into a String in Java?When to use LinkedList over ArrayList in Java?How do I generate random integers within a specific range in Java?What's the simplest way to print a Java array?How do I convert a String to an int in Java?Creating a memory leak with Java
Deal with toxic manager when you can't quit
One-dimensional Japanese puzzle
Can a flute soloist sit?
Sub-subscripts in strings cause different spacings than subscripts
Is there a writing software that you can sort scenes like slides in PowerPoint?
"is" operation returns false even though two objects have same id
University's motivation for having tenure-track positions
Accepted by European university, rejected by all American ones I applied to? Possible reasons?
Does Parliament hold absolute power in the UK?
Was credit for the black hole image misappropriated?
Would an alien lifeform be able to achieve space travel if lacking in vision?
Mortgage adviser recommends a longer term than necessary combined with overpayments
Loose spokes after only a few rides
Python - Fishing Simulator
Simulating Exploding Dice
How to support a colleague who finds meetings extremely tiring?
Can the DM override racial traits?
Identify 80s or 90s comics with ripped creatures (not dwarves)
What do I do when my TA workload is more than expected?
Drawing vertical/oblique lines in Metrical tree (tikz-qtree, tipa)
60's-70's movie: home appliances revolting against the owners
Did the UK government pay "millions and millions of dollars" to try to snag Julian Assange?
Button changing its text & action. Good or terrible?
How do spell lists change if the party levels up without taking a long rest?
Is there a better way to do an empty check in Java? [duplicate]
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
The Ask Question Wizard is Live!
Data science time! April 2019 and salary with experienceHow to check multiple objects for nullity?Check chains of “get” calls for nullHow better refactor chain of methods that can return null in java?Check if last getter in method chain is not nullTry-Catch Instead of Null Check When Using Several Getterstry/catch vs null check in javaTry Catch Performance JavaIs Java “pass-by-reference” or “pass-by-value”?How do I efficiently iterate over each entry in a Java Map?What is the difference between public, protected, package-private and private in Java?Fastest way to determine if an integer's square root is an integerHow do I read / convert an InputStream into a String in Java?When to use LinkedList over ArrayList in Java?How do I generate random integers within a specific range in Java?What's the simplest way to print a Java array?How do I convert a String to an int in Java?Creating a memory leak with Java
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
This question already has an answer here:
Check chains of “get” calls for null
8 answers
Check if last getter in method chain is not null
3 answers
How to check multiple objects for nullity?
5 answers
Try-Catch Instead of Null Check When Using Several Getters
3 answers
How better refactor chain of methods that can return null in java?
10 answers
This might look like a primitive question or a this could be done by a simple utility library method that I don't know about.
The goal is to check the value of a boolean field that is nested under two objects.
private boolean sourceWebsite(Registration registration)
Application application = registration.getApplication();
if (application == null)
return true;
Metadata metadata = application.getMetadata();
if (metadata == null)
return true;
Boolean source = metadata.getSource();
if (source == null)
return true;
return !source;
I know this could be done in a single if()
. I have added multiple if
s here for the sake of readability.
Is there a way that we could simplify the above if
statements and have a simple utility class that returns the value of Boolean source
if the parent objects or not null?
java if-statement conditional
marked as duplicate by Sotirios Delimanolis
StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
);
);
);
yesterday
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
This question already has an answer here:
Check chains of “get” calls for null
8 answers
Check if last getter in method chain is not null
3 answers
How to check multiple objects for nullity?
5 answers
Try-Catch Instead of Null Check When Using Several Getters
3 answers
How better refactor chain of methods that can return null in java?
10 answers
This might look like a primitive question or a this could be done by a simple utility library method that I don't know about.
The goal is to check the value of a boolean field that is nested under two objects.
private boolean sourceWebsite(Registration registration)
Application application = registration.getApplication();
if (application == null)
return true;
Metadata metadata = application.getMetadata();
if (metadata == null)
return true;
Boolean source = metadata.getSource();
if (source == null)
return true;
return !source;
I know this could be done in a single if()
. I have added multiple if
s here for the sake of readability.
Is there a way that we could simplify the above if
statements and have a simple utility class that returns the value of Boolean source
if the parent objects or not null?
java if-statement conditional
marked as duplicate by Sotirios Delimanolis
StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
);
);
);
yesterday
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
This question already has an answer here:
Check chains of “get” calls for null
8 answers
Check if last getter in method chain is not null
3 answers
How to check multiple objects for nullity?
5 answers
Try-Catch Instead of Null Check When Using Several Getters
3 answers
How better refactor chain of methods that can return null in java?
10 answers
This might look like a primitive question or a this could be done by a simple utility library method that I don't know about.
The goal is to check the value of a boolean field that is nested under two objects.
private boolean sourceWebsite(Registration registration)
Application application = registration.getApplication();
if (application == null)
return true;
Metadata metadata = application.getMetadata();
if (metadata == null)
return true;
Boolean source = metadata.getSource();
if (source == null)
return true;
return !source;
I know this could be done in a single if()
. I have added multiple if
s here for the sake of readability.
Is there a way that we could simplify the above if
statements and have a simple utility class that returns the value of Boolean source
if the parent objects or not null?
java if-statement conditional
This question already has an answer here:
Check chains of “get” calls for null
8 answers
Check if last getter in method chain is not null
3 answers
How to check multiple objects for nullity?
5 answers
Try-Catch Instead of Null Check When Using Several Getters
3 answers
How better refactor chain of methods that can return null in java?
10 answers
This might look like a primitive question or a this could be done by a simple utility library method that I don't know about.
The goal is to check the value of a boolean field that is nested under two objects.
private boolean sourceWebsite(Registration registration)
Application application = registration.getApplication();
if (application == null)
return true;
Metadata metadata = application.getMetadata();
if (metadata == null)
return true;
Boolean source = metadata.getSource();
if (source == null)
return true;
return !source;
I know this could be done in a single if()
. I have added multiple if
s here for the sake of readability.
Is there a way that we could simplify the above if
statements and have a simple utility class that returns the value of Boolean source
if the parent objects or not null?
This question already has an answer here:
Check chains of “get” calls for null
8 answers
Check if last getter in method chain is not null
3 answers
How to check multiple objects for nullity?
5 answers
Try-Catch Instead of Null Check When Using Several Getters
3 answers
How better refactor chain of methods that can return null in java?
10 answers
java if-statement conditional
java if-statement conditional
edited yesterday
Peter Mortensen
13.9k1987114
13.9k1987114
asked yesterday
codeMancodeMan
4,44721646
4,44721646
marked as duplicate by Sotirios Delimanolis
StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
);
);
);
yesterday
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by Sotirios Delimanolis
StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;
$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');
$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();
);
);
);
yesterday
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
You can use java.util.Optional
in this way:
private boolean sourceWebsite(Registration registration)
return Optional.of(registration)
.map(Registration::getApplication)
.map(Application::getMetadata)
.map(Metadata::getSource)
.map(source -> !source)
.orElse(Boolean.TRUE);
In short, this will return true
if any of the getters returns null, and !Metadata.source
otherwise.
9
Boolean.FALSE::equals
instead ofsource -> !source
if you really love method reference
– Adrian
yesterday
2
I think you meant ` Optional.ofNullable()`
– dehasi
yesterday
1
Sorry, you are right. I've upvoted :)
– dehasi
yesterday
1
Return type isboolean
so.orElse(true);
would be better.
– user11153
yesterday
2
@user11153 The parameter requires a Boolean.. you give it a boolean and so it has to be boxed. It's not one unboxing less but one boxing more
– ave4496
yesterday
|
show 4 more comments
The following will return true if any one of is null. If all values are not null, it returns !source
.
private boolean sourceWebsite(Registration registration)
return registration.getApplication() == null
Updated :
If you want that every getter not called more than once then you can declare variable for every object like
private boolean sourceWebsite(Registration registration) (metadata = application.getMetadata()) == null
5
The null-conditional operator (?.) of c# is for shure a nice thing...
– keuleJ
yesterday
3
One problem I see is with that pattern is that it executes getApplication 4 times, getMetadata 3 times and getSource 2 times. If they are all trivial getters, this might not be that much of a problem. But if their implementation is non-trivial (or even worse: not side-effect free) this might become a problem.
– Philipp
yesterday
@Philipp yes. But in general getters are trivial.
– Khalid Shah
yesterday
5
In general they should be side-effect free, but that assumes that you are working with classes written by people who knew what they were doing and followed good software engineering principles and Java best practices. In the real world, that's a very brave assumption.
– Philipp
yesterday
1
@EricDuminil You generally can not rely on that. The JVM might be able to optimize these method calls away when they are trivial getters, but it might not be able to do that when they have some logic and it certainly won't be able to do it when they have side-effects.
– Philipp
yesterday
|
show 8 more comments
Another option you can use is a try-catch block. If you get a null pointer exception return true.
private boolean sourceWebsite(Registration registration)
try
return !registration.getApplication().getMetadata().getSource();
catch (NullPointerException e)
return true;
New contributor
6
You shouldn't use exceptions for program logic. Exceptions should be used in case of an unrecoverable state in a program where it's better to stop the entire flow rather than try and recover.
– Nzall
yesterday
1
In general I do agree with you (doing so might make the code harder to follow if it wasn't this short), and I feel that using Optional is correct choice here (assuming you are using a new enough version of java to have access to it). The question asked for a way to handle these checks without several null checks. This will do that.
– CaptianObvious
yesterday
1
@Nzall Exceptions can also be useful in program logic, for instance as a very readable way of checking if a string parses into a number which is very similar to CaptainObvious answer.
– Old Nick
yesterday
Backing up the comment from Nzall: stackoverflow.com/a/8255933/6296561 - TL;DR: exceptions are heavy
– Zoe
yesterday
Until a NPE is thrown much deeper in one of those methods.
– Koekje
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
You could do it using a hacky method like this:
public static Object get(Object o, String... m) throws NoSuchMethodException, IllegalAccessException, InvocationTargetException m.length == 0)
return null;
for (String m1 : m)
o = o.getClass().getMethod(m1).invoke(o);
if (o == null)
return null;
return o;
And call it like this:
Boolean source = (Boolean) get(registration, "getApplication", "getMetadata", "getSource");
return source == null ? false : !source;
But I wouldn't do it this way in any serious projects.
2
This is bad code in so many aspects: slow, not controlled by the compiler, immune to refactoring aids from the IDE. Even you recognize that you wouldn't use this in any serious projects. But then: what's the point? No one would bother to post a question or even read the answers for unserious projects.
– julodnik
yesterday
It could become a bit better if you passed Methods as parameters instead of strings. It would probably look a bit likereturn Optional.of(registration).map(Registration::getApplication).map(Application::getMetadata).map(Metadata::getSource)
so you might as well useOptional
directly. Still, I don't think you deserved downvotes. This method is still interesting as a thought experiment.
– Eric Duminil
yesterday
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You can use java.util.Optional
in this way:
private boolean sourceWebsite(Registration registration)
return Optional.of(registration)
.map(Registration::getApplication)
.map(Application::getMetadata)
.map(Metadata::getSource)
.map(source -> !source)
.orElse(Boolean.TRUE);
In short, this will return true
if any of the getters returns null, and !Metadata.source
otherwise.
9
Boolean.FALSE::equals
instead ofsource -> !source
if you really love method reference
– Adrian
yesterday
2
I think you meant ` Optional.ofNullable()`
– dehasi
yesterday
1
Sorry, you are right. I've upvoted :)
– dehasi
yesterday
1
Return type isboolean
so.orElse(true);
would be better.
– user11153
yesterday
2
@user11153 The parameter requires a Boolean.. you give it a boolean and so it has to be boxed. It's not one unboxing less but one boxing more
– ave4496
yesterday
|
show 4 more comments
You can use java.util.Optional
in this way:
private boolean sourceWebsite(Registration registration)
return Optional.of(registration)
.map(Registration::getApplication)
.map(Application::getMetadata)
.map(Metadata::getSource)
.map(source -> !source)
.orElse(Boolean.TRUE);
In short, this will return true
if any of the getters returns null, and !Metadata.source
otherwise.
9
Boolean.FALSE::equals
instead ofsource -> !source
if you really love method reference
– Adrian
yesterday
2
I think you meant ` Optional.ofNullable()`
– dehasi
yesterday
1
Sorry, you are right. I've upvoted :)
– dehasi
yesterday
1
Return type isboolean
so.orElse(true);
would be better.
– user11153
yesterday
2
@user11153 The parameter requires a Boolean.. you give it a boolean and so it has to be boxed. It's not one unboxing less but one boxing more
– ave4496
yesterday
|
show 4 more comments
You can use java.util.Optional
in this way:
private boolean sourceWebsite(Registration registration)
return Optional.of(registration)
.map(Registration::getApplication)
.map(Application::getMetadata)
.map(Metadata::getSource)
.map(source -> !source)
.orElse(Boolean.TRUE);
In short, this will return true
if any of the getters returns null, and !Metadata.source
otherwise.
You can use java.util.Optional
in this way:
private boolean sourceWebsite(Registration registration)
return Optional.of(registration)
.map(Registration::getApplication)
.map(Application::getMetadata)
.map(Metadata::getSource)
.map(source -> !source)
.orElse(Boolean.TRUE);
In short, this will return true
if any of the getters returns null, and !Metadata.source
otherwise.
edited yesterday
Captain Man
3,29932855
3,29932855
answered yesterday
ernest_kernest_k
24.9k43151
24.9k43151
9
Boolean.FALSE::equals
instead ofsource -> !source
if you really love method reference
– Adrian
yesterday
2
I think you meant ` Optional.ofNullable()`
– dehasi
yesterday
1
Sorry, you are right. I've upvoted :)
– dehasi
yesterday
1
Return type isboolean
so.orElse(true);
would be better.
– user11153
yesterday
2
@user11153 The parameter requires a Boolean.. you give it a boolean and so it has to be boxed. It's not one unboxing less but one boxing more
– ave4496
yesterday
|
show 4 more comments
9
Boolean.FALSE::equals
instead ofsource -> !source
if you really love method reference
– Adrian
yesterday
2
I think you meant ` Optional.ofNullable()`
– dehasi
yesterday
1
Sorry, you are right. I've upvoted :)
– dehasi
yesterday
1
Return type isboolean
so.orElse(true);
would be better.
– user11153
yesterday
2
@user11153 The parameter requires a Boolean.. you give it a boolean and so it has to be boxed. It's not one unboxing less but one boxing more
– ave4496
yesterday
9
9
Boolean.FALSE::equals
instead of source -> !source
if you really love method reference– Adrian
yesterday
Boolean.FALSE::equals
instead of source -> !source
if you really love method reference– Adrian
yesterday
2
2
I think you meant ` Optional.ofNullable()`
– dehasi
yesterday
I think you meant ` Optional.ofNullable()`
– dehasi
yesterday
1
1
Sorry, you are right. I've upvoted :)
– dehasi
yesterday
Sorry, you are right. I've upvoted :)
– dehasi
yesterday
1
1
Return type is
boolean
so .orElse(true);
would be better.– user11153
yesterday
Return type is
boolean
so .orElse(true);
would be better.– user11153
yesterday
2
2
@user11153 The parameter requires a Boolean.. you give it a boolean and so it has to be boxed. It's not one unboxing less but one boxing more
– ave4496
yesterday
@user11153 The parameter requires a Boolean.. you give it a boolean and so it has to be boxed. It's not one unboxing less but one boxing more
– ave4496
yesterday
|
show 4 more comments
The following will return true if any one of is null. If all values are not null, it returns !source
.
private boolean sourceWebsite(Registration registration)
return registration.getApplication() == null
Updated :
If you want that every getter not called more than once then you can declare variable for every object like
private boolean sourceWebsite(Registration registration) (metadata = application.getMetadata()) == null
5
The null-conditional operator (?.) of c# is for shure a nice thing...
– keuleJ
yesterday
3
One problem I see is with that pattern is that it executes getApplication 4 times, getMetadata 3 times and getSource 2 times. If they are all trivial getters, this might not be that much of a problem. But if their implementation is non-trivial (or even worse: not side-effect free) this might become a problem.
– Philipp
yesterday
@Philipp yes. But in general getters are trivial.
– Khalid Shah
yesterday
5
In general they should be side-effect free, but that assumes that you are working with classes written by people who knew what they were doing and followed good software engineering principles and Java best practices. In the real world, that's a very brave assumption.
– Philipp
yesterday
1
@EricDuminil You generally can not rely on that. The JVM might be able to optimize these method calls away when they are trivial getters, but it might not be able to do that when they have some logic and it certainly won't be able to do it when they have side-effects.
– Philipp
yesterday
|
show 8 more comments
The following will return true if any one of is null. If all values are not null, it returns !source
.
private boolean sourceWebsite(Registration registration)
return registration.getApplication() == null
Updated :
If you want that every getter not called more than once then you can declare variable for every object like
private boolean sourceWebsite(Registration registration) (metadata = application.getMetadata()) == null
5
The null-conditional operator (?.) of c# is for shure a nice thing...
– keuleJ
yesterday
3
One problem I see is with that pattern is that it executes getApplication 4 times, getMetadata 3 times and getSource 2 times. If they are all trivial getters, this might not be that much of a problem. But if their implementation is non-trivial (or even worse: not side-effect free) this might become a problem.
– Philipp
yesterday
@Philipp yes. But in general getters are trivial.
– Khalid Shah
yesterday
5
In general they should be side-effect free, but that assumes that you are working with classes written by people who knew what they were doing and followed good software engineering principles and Java best practices. In the real world, that's a very brave assumption.
– Philipp
yesterday
1
@EricDuminil You generally can not rely on that. The JVM might be able to optimize these method calls away when they are trivial getters, but it might not be able to do that when they have some logic and it certainly won't be able to do it when they have side-effects.
– Philipp
yesterday
|
show 8 more comments
The following will return true if any one of is null. If all values are not null, it returns !source
.
private boolean sourceWebsite(Registration registration)
return registration.getApplication() == null
Updated :
If you want that every getter not called more than once then you can declare variable for every object like
private boolean sourceWebsite(Registration registration) (metadata = application.getMetadata()) == null
The following will return true if any one of is null. If all values are not null, it returns !source
.
private boolean sourceWebsite(Registration registration)
return registration.getApplication() == null
Updated :
If you want that every getter not called more than once then you can declare variable for every object like
private boolean sourceWebsite(Registration registration) (metadata = application.getMetadata()) == null
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Khalid ShahKhalid Shah
2,24021025
2,24021025
5
The null-conditional operator (?.) of c# is for shure a nice thing...
– keuleJ
yesterday
3
One problem I see is with that pattern is that it executes getApplication 4 times, getMetadata 3 times and getSource 2 times. If they are all trivial getters, this might not be that much of a problem. But if their implementation is non-trivial (or even worse: not side-effect free) this might become a problem.
– Philipp
yesterday
@Philipp yes. But in general getters are trivial.
– Khalid Shah
yesterday
5
In general they should be side-effect free, but that assumes that you are working with classes written by people who knew what they were doing and followed good software engineering principles and Java best practices. In the real world, that's a very brave assumption.
– Philipp
yesterday
1
@EricDuminil You generally can not rely on that. The JVM might be able to optimize these method calls away when they are trivial getters, but it might not be able to do that when they have some logic and it certainly won't be able to do it when they have side-effects.
– Philipp
yesterday
|
show 8 more comments
5
The null-conditional operator (?.) of c# is for shure a nice thing...
– keuleJ
yesterday
3
One problem I see is with that pattern is that it executes getApplication 4 times, getMetadata 3 times and getSource 2 times. If they are all trivial getters, this might not be that much of a problem. But if their implementation is non-trivial (or even worse: not side-effect free) this might become a problem.
– Philipp
yesterday
@Philipp yes. But in general getters are trivial.
– Khalid Shah
yesterday
5
In general they should be side-effect free, but that assumes that you are working with classes written by people who knew what they were doing and followed good software engineering principles and Java best practices. In the real world, that's a very brave assumption.
– Philipp
yesterday
1
@EricDuminil You generally can not rely on that. The JVM might be able to optimize these method calls away when they are trivial getters, but it might not be able to do that when they have some logic and it certainly won't be able to do it when they have side-effects.
– Philipp
yesterday
5
5
The null-conditional operator (?.) of c# is for shure a nice thing...
– keuleJ
yesterday
The null-conditional operator (?.) of c# is for shure a nice thing...
– keuleJ
yesterday
3
3
One problem I see is with that pattern is that it executes getApplication 4 times, getMetadata 3 times and getSource 2 times. If they are all trivial getters, this might not be that much of a problem. But if their implementation is non-trivial (or even worse: not side-effect free) this might become a problem.
– Philipp
yesterday
One problem I see is with that pattern is that it executes getApplication 4 times, getMetadata 3 times and getSource 2 times. If they are all trivial getters, this might not be that much of a problem. But if their implementation is non-trivial (or even worse: not side-effect free) this might become a problem.
– Philipp
yesterday
@Philipp yes. But in general getters are trivial.
– Khalid Shah
yesterday
@Philipp yes. But in general getters are trivial.
– Khalid Shah
yesterday
5
5
In general they should be side-effect free, but that assumes that you are working with classes written by people who knew what they were doing and followed good software engineering principles and Java best practices. In the real world, that's a very brave assumption.
– Philipp
yesterday
In general they should be side-effect free, but that assumes that you are working with classes written by people who knew what they were doing and followed good software engineering principles and Java best practices. In the real world, that's a very brave assumption.
– Philipp
yesterday
1
1
@EricDuminil You generally can not rely on that. The JVM might be able to optimize these method calls away when they are trivial getters, but it might not be able to do that when they have some logic and it certainly won't be able to do it when they have side-effects.
– Philipp
yesterday
@EricDuminil You generally can not rely on that. The JVM might be able to optimize these method calls away when they are trivial getters, but it might not be able to do that when they have some logic and it certainly won't be able to do it when they have side-effects.
– Philipp
yesterday
|
show 8 more comments
Another option you can use is a try-catch block. If you get a null pointer exception return true.
private boolean sourceWebsite(Registration registration)
try
return !registration.getApplication().getMetadata().getSource();
catch (NullPointerException e)
return true;
New contributor
6
You shouldn't use exceptions for program logic. Exceptions should be used in case of an unrecoverable state in a program where it's better to stop the entire flow rather than try and recover.
– Nzall
yesterday
1
In general I do agree with you (doing so might make the code harder to follow if it wasn't this short), and I feel that using Optional is correct choice here (assuming you are using a new enough version of java to have access to it). The question asked for a way to handle these checks without several null checks. This will do that.
– CaptianObvious
yesterday
1
@Nzall Exceptions can also be useful in program logic, for instance as a very readable way of checking if a string parses into a number which is very similar to CaptainObvious answer.
– Old Nick
yesterday
Backing up the comment from Nzall: stackoverflow.com/a/8255933/6296561 - TL;DR: exceptions are heavy
– Zoe
yesterday
Until a NPE is thrown much deeper in one of those methods.
– Koekje
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
Another option you can use is a try-catch block. If you get a null pointer exception return true.
private boolean sourceWebsite(Registration registration)
try
return !registration.getApplication().getMetadata().getSource();
catch (NullPointerException e)
return true;
New contributor
6
You shouldn't use exceptions for program logic. Exceptions should be used in case of an unrecoverable state in a program where it's better to stop the entire flow rather than try and recover.
– Nzall
yesterday
1
In general I do agree with you (doing so might make the code harder to follow if it wasn't this short), and I feel that using Optional is correct choice here (assuming you are using a new enough version of java to have access to it). The question asked for a way to handle these checks without several null checks. This will do that.
– CaptianObvious
yesterday
1
@Nzall Exceptions can also be useful in program logic, for instance as a very readable way of checking if a string parses into a number which is very similar to CaptainObvious answer.
– Old Nick
yesterday
Backing up the comment from Nzall: stackoverflow.com/a/8255933/6296561 - TL;DR: exceptions are heavy
– Zoe
yesterday
Until a NPE is thrown much deeper in one of those methods.
– Koekje
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
Another option you can use is a try-catch block. If you get a null pointer exception return true.
private boolean sourceWebsite(Registration registration)
try
return !registration.getApplication().getMetadata().getSource();
catch (NullPointerException e)
return true;
New contributor
Another option you can use is a try-catch block. If you get a null pointer exception return true.
private boolean sourceWebsite(Registration registration)
try
return !registration.getApplication().getMetadata().getSource();
catch (NullPointerException e)
return true;
New contributor
edited yesterday
New contributor
answered yesterday
CaptianObviousCaptianObvious
5713
5713
New contributor
New contributor
6
You shouldn't use exceptions for program logic. Exceptions should be used in case of an unrecoverable state in a program where it's better to stop the entire flow rather than try and recover.
– Nzall
yesterday
1
In general I do agree with you (doing so might make the code harder to follow if it wasn't this short), and I feel that using Optional is correct choice here (assuming you are using a new enough version of java to have access to it). The question asked for a way to handle these checks without several null checks. This will do that.
– CaptianObvious
yesterday
1
@Nzall Exceptions can also be useful in program logic, for instance as a very readable way of checking if a string parses into a number which is very similar to CaptainObvious answer.
– Old Nick
yesterday
Backing up the comment from Nzall: stackoverflow.com/a/8255933/6296561 - TL;DR: exceptions are heavy
– Zoe
yesterday
Until a NPE is thrown much deeper in one of those methods.
– Koekje
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
6
You shouldn't use exceptions for program logic. Exceptions should be used in case of an unrecoverable state in a program where it's better to stop the entire flow rather than try and recover.
– Nzall
yesterday
1
In general I do agree with you (doing so might make the code harder to follow if it wasn't this short), and I feel that using Optional is correct choice here (assuming you are using a new enough version of java to have access to it). The question asked for a way to handle these checks without several null checks. This will do that.
– CaptianObvious
yesterday
1
@Nzall Exceptions can also be useful in program logic, for instance as a very readable way of checking if a string parses into a number which is very similar to CaptainObvious answer.
– Old Nick
yesterday
Backing up the comment from Nzall: stackoverflow.com/a/8255933/6296561 - TL;DR: exceptions are heavy
– Zoe
yesterday
Until a NPE is thrown much deeper in one of those methods.
– Koekje
yesterday
6
6
You shouldn't use exceptions for program logic. Exceptions should be used in case of an unrecoverable state in a program where it's better to stop the entire flow rather than try and recover.
– Nzall
yesterday
You shouldn't use exceptions for program logic. Exceptions should be used in case of an unrecoverable state in a program where it's better to stop the entire flow rather than try and recover.
– Nzall
yesterday
1
1
In general I do agree with you (doing so might make the code harder to follow if it wasn't this short), and I feel that using Optional is correct choice here (assuming you are using a new enough version of java to have access to it). The question asked for a way to handle these checks without several null checks. This will do that.
– CaptianObvious
yesterday
In general I do agree with you (doing so might make the code harder to follow if it wasn't this short), and I feel that using Optional is correct choice here (assuming you are using a new enough version of java to have access to it). The question asked for a way to handle these checks without several null checks. This will do that.
– CaptianObvious
yesterday
1
1
@Nzall Exceptions can also be useful in program logic, for instance as a very readable way of checking if a string parses into a number which is very similar to CaptainObvious answer.
– Old Nick
yesterday
@Nzall Exceptions can also be useful in program logic, for instance as a very readable way of checking if a string parses into a number which is very similar to CaptainObvious answer.
– Old Nick
yesterday
Backing up the comment from Nzall: stackoverflow.com/a/8255933/6296561 - TL;DR: exceptions are heavy
– Zoe
yesterday
Backing up the comment from Nzall: stackoverflow.com/a/8255933/6296561 - TL;DR: exceptions are heavy
– Zoe
yesterday
Until a NPE is thrown much deeper in one of those methods.
– Koekje
yesterday
Until a NPE is thrown much deeper in one of those methods.
– Koekje
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
You could do it using a hacky method like this:
public static Object get(Object o, String... m) throws NoSuchMethodException, IllegalAccessException, InvocationTargetException m.length == 0)
return null;
for (String m1 : m)
o = o.getClass().getMethod(m1).invoke(o);
if (o == null)
return null;
return o;
And call it like this:
Boolean source = (Boolean) get(registration, "getApplication", "getMetadata", "getSource");
return source == null ? false : !source;
But I wouldn't do it this way in any serious projects.
2
This is bad code in so many aspects: slow, not controlled by the compiler, immune to refactoring aids from the IDE. Even you recognize that you wouldn't use this in any serious projects. But then: what's the point? No one would bother to post a question or even read the answers for unserious projects.
– julodnik
yesterday
It could become a bit better if you passed Methods as parameters instead of strings. It would probably look a bit likereturn Optional.of(registration).map(Registration::getApplication).map(Application::getMetadata).map(Metadata::getSource)
so you might as well useOptional
directly. Still, I don't think you deserved downvotes. This method is still interesting as a thought experiment.
– Eric Duminil
yesterday
add a comment |
You could do it using a hacky method like this:
public static Object get(Object o, String... m) throws NoSuchMethodException, IllegalAccessException, InvocationTargetException m.length == 0)
return null;
for (String m1 : m)
o = o.getClass().getMethod(m1).invoke(o);
if (o == null)
return null;
return o;
And call it like this:
Boolean source = (Boolean) get(registration, "getApplication", "getMetadata", "getSource");
return source == null ? false : !source;
But I wouldn't do it this way in any serious projects.
2
This is bad code in so many aspects: slow, not controlled by the compiler, immune to refactoring aids from the IDE. Even you recognize that you wouldn't use this in any serious projects. But then: what's the point? No one would bother to post a question or even read the answers for unserious projects.
– julodnik
yesterday
It could become a bit better if you passed Methods as parameters instead of strings. It would probably look a bit likereturn Optional.of(registration).map(Registration::getApplication).map(Application::getMetadata).map(Metadata::getSource)
so you might as well useOptional
directly. Still, I don't think you deserved downvotes. This method is still interesting as a thought experiment.
– Eric Duminil
yesterday
add a comment |
You could do it using a hacky method like this:
public static Object get(Object o, String... m) throws NoSuchMethodException, IllegalAccessException, InvocationTargetException m.length == 0)
return null;
for (String m1 : m)
o = o.getClass().getMethod(m1).invoke(o);
if (o == null)
return null;
return o;
And call it like this:
Boolean source = (Boolean) get(registration, "getApplication", "getMetadata", "getSource");
return source == null ? false : !source;
But I wouldn't do it this way in any serious projects.
You could do it using a hacky method like this:
public static Object get(Object o, String... m) throws NoSuchMethodException, IllegalAccessException, InvocationTargetException m.length == 0)
return null;
for (String m1 : m)
o = o.getClass().getMethod(m1).invoke(o);
if (o == null)
return null;
return o;
And call it like this:
Boolean source = (Boolean) get(registration, "getApplication", "getMetadata", "getSource");
return source == null ? false : !source;
But I wouldn't do it this way in any serious projects.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Mika LammiMika Lammi
975619
975619
2
This is bad code in so many aspects: slow, not controlled by the compiler, immune to refactoring aids from the IDE. Even you recognize that you wouldn't use this in any serious projects. But then: what's the point? No one would bother to post a question or even read the answers for unserious projects.
– julodnik
yesterday
It could become a bit better if you passed Methods as parameters instead of strings. It would probably look a bit likereturn Optional.of(registration).map(Registration::getApplication).map(Application::getMetadata).map(Metadata::getSource)
so you might as well useOptional
directly. Still, I don't think you deserved downvotes. This method is still interesting as a thought experiment.
– Eric Duminil
yesterday
add a comment |
2
This is bad code in so many aspects: slow, not controlled by the compiler, immune to refactoring aids from the IDE. Even you recognize that you wouldn't use this in any serious projects. But then: what's the point? No one would bother to post a question or even read the answers for unserious projects.
– julodnik
yesterday
It could become a bit better if you passed Methods as parameters instead of strings. It would probably look a bit likereturn Optional.of(registration).map(Registration::getApplication).map(Application::getMetadata).map(Metadata::getSource)
so you might as well useOptional
directly. Still, I don't think you deserved downvotes. This method is still interesting as a thought experiment.
– Eric Duminil
yesterday
2
2
This is bad code in so many aspects: slow, not controlled by the compiler, immune to refactoring aids from the IDE. Even you recognize that you wouldn't use this in any serious projects. But then: what's the point? No one would bother to post a question or even read the answers for unserious projects.
– julodnik
yesterday
This is bad code in so many aspects: slow, not controlled by the compiler, immune to refactoring aids from the IDE. Even you recognize that you wouldn't use this in any serious projects. But then: what's the point? No one would bother to post a question or even read the answers for unserious projects.
– julodnik
yesterday
It could become a bit better if you passed Methods as parameters instead of strings. It would probably look a bit like
return Optional.of(registration).map(Registration::getApplication).map(Application::getMetadata).map(Metadata::getSource)
so you might as well use Optional
directly. Still, I don't think you deserved downvotes. This method is still interesting as a thought experiment.– Eric Duminil
yesterday
It could become a bit better if you passed Methods as parameters instead of strings. It would probably look a bit like
return Optional.of(registration).map(Registration::getApplication).map(Application::getMetadata).map(Metadata::getSource)
so you might as well use Optional
directly. Still, I don't think you deserved downvotes. This method is still interesting as a thought experiment.– Eric Duminil
yesterday
add a comment |
-conditional, if-statement, java