When using the Java 8 Optional
class, there are two ways in which a value can be wrapped in an optional.
String foobar = <value or null>;
Optional.of(foobar); // May throw NullPointerException
Optional.ofNullable(foobar); // Safe from NullPointerException
I understand Optional.ofNullable
is the only safe way of using Optional
, but why does Optional.of
exist at all? Why not just use Optional.ofNullable
and be on the safe side at all times?
Your question is based on assumption that the code which may throw NullPointerException
is worse than the code which may not. This assumption is wrong. If you expect that your foobar
is never null due to the program logic, it's much better to use Optional.of(foobar)
as you will see a NullPointerException
which will indicate that your program has a bug. If you use Optional.ofNullable(foobar)
and the foobar
happens to be null
due to the bug, then your program will silently continue working incorrectly, which may be a bigger disaster. This way an error may occur much later and it would be much harder to understand at which point it went wrong.