Code review: 7012540 (java.util.Objects.nonNull() incorrectly named) (original) (raw)

Mike Duigou mike.duigou at oracle.com
Wed Jan 26 04:31:55 UTC 2011

requireNonNull() seems to be the best compromise.

The changes look good to me.

Mike

On Jan 25 2011, at 12:24 , Brian Goetz wrote:

There is a webrev for CR 7012540 (java.util.Objects.nonNull() incorrectly named) at:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~briangoetz/7012540/webrev/ Code review would be appreciated. Text of CR: The class java.util.Objects is new for JDK 7. Its mission is to provide "null-safe or null-tolerant versions of common operations on objects." The methods nonNull(x) have the behavior of throwing NPE if their argument is null, and returning their argument if non-null. It is very common in Java source bases for a method named nonNull(x) to have the behavior of coercing their argument to null; that is, it is generally associated with a null-tolerant rather than a null-safe behavior. These methods should be renamed to something that makes its checking/verification behavior clear, while preserving the convenient self-return property so that it can be used in cases like: public void fooWrapper(String s, String t) { foo(checkNonNull(s), checkNonNull(t)); }

Additional notes: After much discussion on core-libs-dev, the name requireNonNull() seemed the least objectionable.

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list