Is there a better way to do an empty check in Java? [duplicate] Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Data science time! April 2019 and salary with experience Should we burninate the [wrap] tag? The Ask Question Wizard is Live!How 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
51k Euros annually for a family of 4 in Berlin: Is it enough?
If a contract sometimes uses the wrong name, is it still valid?
Seeking colloquialism for “just because”
What would be the ideal power source for a cybernetic eye?
List *all* the tuples!
Why did the Falcon Heavy center core fall off the ASDS OCISLY barge?
Withdrew £2800, but only £2000 shows as withdrawn on online banking; what are my obligations?
How does the particle を relate to the verb 行く in the structure「A を + B に行く」?
Denied boarding although I have proper visa and documentation. To whom should I make a complaint?
At the end of Thor: Ragnarok why don't the Asgardians turn and head for the Bifrost as per their original plan?
2001: A Space Odyssey's use of the song "Daisy Bell" (Bicycle Built for Two); life imitates art or vice-versa?
Why aren't air breathing engines used as small first stages
What causes the vertical darker bands in my photo?
porting install scripts : can rpm replace apt?
How do I stop a creek from eroding my steep embankment?
How to deal with a team lead who never gives me credit?
Coloring maths inside a tcolorbox
Can any chord be converted to its roman numeral equivalent?
Is there a problem creating Diff Backups every hour instead of Logs and DIffs?
How can I make names more distinctive without making them longer?
Dating a Former Employee
Check which numbers satisfy the condition [A*B*C = A! + B! + C!]
How to bypass password on Windows XP account?
What is a non-alternating simple group with big order, but relatively few conjugacy classes?
Is there a better way to do an empty check in Java? [duplicate]
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)
Data science time! April 2019 and salary with experience
Should we burninate the [wrap] tag?
The Ask Question Wizard is Live!How 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();
);
);
);
Apr 11 at 16:09
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();
);
);
);
Apr 11 at 16:09
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 Apr 11 at 12:13
Peter Mortensen
13.9k1987114
13.9k1987114
asked Apr 11 at 10:42
codeMancodeMan
4,45321646
4,45321646
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();
);
);
);
Apr 11 at 16:09
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();
);
);
);
Apr 11 at 16:09
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
Apr 11 at 11:15
2
I think you meant ` Optional.ofNullable()`
– dehasi
Apr 11 at 12:15
1
Sorry, you are right. I've upvoted :)
– dehasi
Apr 11 at 12:17
1
Return type isboolean
so.orElse(true);
would be better.
– user11153
Apr 11 at 12:54
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
Apr 11 at 14:07
|
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) registration.getApplication().getMetadata() == 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)
5
The null-conditional operator (?.) of c# is for shure a nice thing...
– keuleJ
Apr 11 at 10:52
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
Apr 11 at 11:45
@Philipp yes. But in general getters are trivial.
– Khalid Shah
Apr 11 at 11:47
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
Apr 11 at 11:49
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
Apr 11 at 15:25
|
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
Apr 11 at 13:46
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
Apr 11 at 13:53
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
Apr 11 at 15:00
Backing up the comment from Nzall: stackoverflow.com/a/8255933/6296561 - TL;DR: exceptions are heavy
– Zoe
Apr 11 at 15:08
Until a NPE is thrown much deeper in one of those methods.
– Koekje
Apr 11 at 15:56
|
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
Apr 11 at 14:56
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
Apr 11 at 16:38
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
Apr 11 at 11:15
2
I think you meant ` Optional.ofNullable()`
– dehasi
Apr 11 at 12:15
1
Sorry, you are right. I've upvoted :)
– dehasi
Apr 11 at 12:17
1
Return type isboolean
so.orElse(true);
would be better.
– user11153
Apr 11 at 12:54
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
Apr 11 at 14:07
|
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
Apr 11 at 11:15
2
I think you meant ` Optional.ofNullable()`
– dehasi
Apr 11 at 12:15
1
Sorry, you are right. I've upvoted :)
– dehasi
Apr 11 at 12:17
1
Return type isboolean
so.orElse(true);
would be better.
– user11153
Apr 11 at 12:54
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
Apr 11 at 14:07
|
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 Apr 11 at 16:00
Captain Man
3,29932855
3,29932855
answered Apr 11 at 10:49
ernest_kernest_k
24.9k43151
24.9k43151
9
Boolean.FALSE::equals
instead ofsource -> !source
if you really love method reference
– Adrian
Apr 11 at 11:15
2
I think you meant ` Optional.ofNullable()`
– dehasi
Apr 11 at 12:15
1
Sorry, you are right. I've upvoted :)
– dehasi
Apr 11 at 12:17
1
Return type isboolean
so.orElse(true);
would be better.
– user11153
Apr 11 at 12:54
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
Apr 11 at 14:07
|
show 4 more comments
9
Boolean.FALSE::equals
instead ofsource -> !source
if you really love method reference
– Adrian
Apr 11 at 11:15
2
I think you meant ` Optional.ofNullable()`
– dehasi
Apr 11 at 12:15
1
Sorry, you are right. I've upvoted :)
– dehasi
Apr 11 at 12:17
1
Return type isboolean
so.orElse(true);
would be better.
– user11153
Apr 11 at 12:54
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
Apr 11 at 14:07
9
9
Boolean.FALSE::equals
instead of source -> !source
if you really love method reference– Adrian
Apr 11 at 11:15
Boolean.FALSE::equals
instead of source -> !source
if you really love method reference– Adrian
Apr 11 at 11:15
2
2
I think you meant ` Optional.ofNullable()`
– dehasi
Apr 11 at 12:15
I think you meant ` Optional.ofNullable()`
– dehasi
Apr 11 at 12:15
1
1
Sorry, you are right. I've upvoted :)
– dehasi
Apr 11 at 12:17
Sorry, you are right. I've upvoted :)
– dehasi
Apr 11 at 12:17
1
1
Return type is
boolean
so .orElse(true);
would be better.– user11153
Apr 11 at 12:54
Return type is
boolean
so .orElse(true);
would be better.– user11153
Apr 11 at 12:54
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
Apr 11 at 14:07
@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
Apr 11 at 14:07
|
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) registration.getApplication().getMetadata() == 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)
5
The null-conditional operator (?.) of c# is for shure a nice thing...
– keuleJ
Apr 11 at 10:52
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
Apr 11 at 11:45
@Philipp yes. But in general getters are trivial.
– Khalid Shah
Apr 11 at 11:47
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
Apr 11 at 11:49
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
Apr 11 at 15:25
|
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) registration.getApplication().getMetadata() == 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)
5
The null-conditional operator (?.) of c# is for shure a nice thing...
– keuleJ
Apr 11 at 10:52
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
Apr 11 at 11:45
@Philipp yes. But in general getters are trivial.
– Khalid Shah
Apr 11 at 11:47
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
Apr 11 at 11:49
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
Apr 11 at 15:25
|
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) registration.getApplication().getMetadata() == 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)
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) registration.getApplication().getMetadata() == 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)
edited yesterday
answered Apr 11 at 10:50
Khalid ShahKhalid Shah
2,29821025
2,29821025
5
The null-conditional operator (?.) of c# is for shure a nice thing...
– keuleJ
Apr 11 at 10:52
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
Apr 11 at 11:45
@Philipp yes. But in general getters are trivial.
– Khalid Shah
Apr 11 at 11:47
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
Apr 11 at 11:49
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
Apr 11 at 15:25
|
show 8 more comments
5
The null-conditional operator (?.) of c# is for shure a nice thing...
– keuleJ
Apr 11 at 10:52
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
Apr 11 at 11:45
@Philipp yes. But in general getters are trivial.
– Khalid Shah
Apr 11 at 11:47
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
Apr 11 at 11:49
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
Apr 11 at 15:25
5
5
The null-conditional operator (?.) of c# is for shure a nice thing...
– keuleJ
Apr 11 at 10:52
The null-conditional operator (?.) of c# is for shure a nice thing...
– keuleJ
Apr 11 at 10:52
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
Apr 11 at 11:45
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
Apr 11 at 11:45
@Philipp yes. But in general getters are trivial.
– Khalid Shah
Apr 11 at 11:47
@Philipp yes. But in general getters are trivial.
– Khalid Shah
Apr 11 at 11:47
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
Apr 11 at 11:49
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
Apr 11 at 11:49
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
Apr 11 at 15:25
@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
Apr 11 at 15:25
|
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
Apr 11 at 13:46
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
Apr 11 at 13:53
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
Apr 11 at 15:00
Backing up the comment from Nzall: stackoverflow.com/a/8255933/6296561 - TL;DR: exceptions are heavy
– Zoe
Apr 11 at 15:08
Until a NPE is thrown much deeper in one of those methods.
– Koekje
Apr 11 at 15:56
|
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
Apr 11 at 13:46
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
Apr 11 at 13:53
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
Apr 11 at 15:00
Backing up the comment from Nzall: stackoverflow.com/a/8255933/6296561 - TL;DR: exceptions are heavy
– Zoe
Apr 11 at 15:08
Until a NPE is thrown much deeper in one of those methods.
– Koekje
Apr 11 at 15:56
|
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 Apr 11 at 14:23
New contributor
answered Apr 11 at 13:41
CaptianObviousCaptianObvious
5313
5313
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
Apr 11 at 13:46
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
Apr 11 at 13:53
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
Apr 11 at 15:00
Backing up the comment from Nzall: stackoverflow.com/a/8255933/6296561 - TL;DR: exceptions are heavy
– Zoe
Apr 11 at 15:08
Until a NPE is thrown much deeper in one of those methods.
– Koekje
Apr 11 at 15:56
|
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
Apr 11 at 13:46
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
Apr 11 at 13:53
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
Apr 11 at 15:00
Backing up the comment from Nzall: stackoverflow.com/a/8255933/6296561 - TL;DR: exceptions are heavy
– Zoe
Apr 11 at 15:08
Until a NPE is thrown much deeper in one of those methods.
– Koekje
Apr 11 at 15:56
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
Apr 11 at 13:46
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
Apr 11 at 13:46
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
Apr 11 at 13:53
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
Apr 11 at 13:53
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
Apr 11 at 15:00
@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
Apr 11 at 15:00
Backing up the comment from Nzall: stackoverflow.com/a/8255933/6296561 - TL;DR: exceptions are heavy
– Zoe
Apr 11 at 15:08
Backing up the comment from Nzall: stackoverflow.com/a/8255933/6296561 - TL;DR: exceptions are heavy
– Zoe
Apr 11 at 15:08
Until a NPE is thrown much deeper in one of those methods.
– Koekje
Apr 11 at 15:56
Until a NPE is thrown much deeper in one of those methods.
– Koekje
Apr 11 at 15:56
|
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
Apr 11 at 14:56
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
Apr 11 at 16:38
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
Apr 11 at 14:56
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
Apr 11 at 16:38
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 Apr 11 at 13:15
answered Apr 11 at 13:03
Mika LammiMika Lammi
973619
973619
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
Apr 11 at 14:56
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
Apr 11 at 16:38
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
Apr 11 at 14:56
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
Apr 11 at 16:38
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
Apr 11 at 14:56
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
Apr 11 at 14:56
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
Apr 11 at 16:38
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
Apr 11 at 16:38
add a comment |