Le mer. 4 mars 2020 à 15:09, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> IMO, until we are all on Java 14 and benefit from its more detailed NPE
> message, we need to call Validate.notNull _with a message_ that says what
> variable blew up.
No, we don't *need* to (for the reason stated previously), but you
may *want* to.
Gilles
>
> Gary
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 9:01 AM Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Le mer. 4 mars 2020 à 14:19, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> a
> > écrit :
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 7:58 AM sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 at 18:09, Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Le sam. 29 févr. 2020 à 18:39, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
> > a
> > > > écrit :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 5:25 PM Gary Gregory <
> > garydgreg...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would like to do the same in Lang as with Collections (see
> > below.)\
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We currently perform checks like:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Validate.isTrue(foo != null, ...)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which should be IMO:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Validate.notNull(foo, ...);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The difference being that the former throws IAE and the later
> > NPE.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As with [collections], my argument is the same, the JRE uses
> > > > > > > Objects.requireNonNull() to throw an NPE, so I'd like to keep
> > > > normalizing
> > > > > > > on that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any thoughts? Should I proceed?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > > +1 for NPE on unexpected null.
> > > > > [But perhaps it is not necessary to double-check, as the JRE
> > > > > will do it anyway (and throw NPE).]
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is not about dropping the check, please re-read the thread,
> > > specifically:
> >
> > Please re-read my reply (3 and 4 lines above).
> > In line with what Sebb mentions; if the code is akin to
> > ---CUT---
> > void doSomethingWith(Object foo) {
> > Validate.notNull(foo, ...); // Provably unnecessary because...
> > System.out.println("foo=" + foo.toString()); // ... this will throw NPE.
> > // ...
> > }
> > ---CUT---
> > Then the check could be dropped, especially if it would throw
> > NPE instead of IAE.
> >
> > In fact, my impression is that, when we control the chain of calls
> > (e.g. when there is no external dependency), there is always a
> > point where NPE will be thrown (by the JRE) unless the reference
> > is never used; hence the check is not strictly necessary; it will only
> > abort the chain earlier, at the cost of doing many checks that are
> > not needed in the nominal case (where the reference is not null).
> >
> > Gilles
> >
> > >
> > > We currently perform checks like:
> > >
> > > Validate.isTrue(foo != null, ...)
> > >
> > > Which should be IMO:
> > >
> > > Validate.notNull(foo, ...);
> > >
> > > notNull calls the JRE's Objects.requireNonNull()
> > >
> > >
> > > > Depends on how and where the variable is used -- sometimes a null can
> > > > cause hard to track errors, not necessarily NPE, and the exception (or
> > > > possibly other failure) may be a long way from the initial method
> > > > call.
> > > >
> > > > It's almost always better to report the problem as early as possible.
> > > >
> > > > I think the existing checks should be kept.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Agreed, but I am talking but performing a better cleaner check by using
> > > Validate.notNull(foo, ...) instead of Validate.isTrue(foo != null, ...)
> > >
> > > Gary
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If it can be proved that the code would generate NPE immediately
> > > > anyway, it might be worth dropping the check.
> > > > However, code changes, so at least a comment should be left in its
> > > > place to note that the code is relying on Java to generate the NPE at
> > > > this point.
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > Gilles
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gary
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Gary
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > > > > > > From: Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > Date: Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 9:59 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [collection] NPE vs IAE in
> > > > > > > org.apache.commons.collections4.CollectionUtils
> > > > > > > To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>, Bruno P.
> > > > Kinoshita <
> > > > > > > brunodepau...@yahoo.com.br>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > FTR, using requireNonNull is also an 'Effective Java'
> > recommendation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Gary
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 4:54 PM Bruno P. Kinoshita
> > > > > > > <brunodepau...@yahoo.com.br.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> +1 for NPE
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Friday, 6 December 2019, 5:22:34 am NZDT, Gary Gregory <
> > > > > > >> garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Hi All:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> org.apache.commons.collections4.CollectionUtils contains a mix
> > of
> > > > checking
> > > > > > >> for null inputs by throwing NullPointerExceptions in some
> > methods
> > > > and
> > > > > > >> IllegalArgumentExceptions in others.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I propose we standardized to NPE simply because the JRE provides
> > > > > > >> Objects.requireNonNull() just for this purpose.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Gary
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
