更多的肉要磨:让我们说我的DAL返回一个NULL的GetPersonByID，正如一些建议。我的(相当薄)BLL应该做什么，如果它收到一个NULL?传递NULL，并让最终消费者担心它(在这种情况下，一个ASP。网络页面)?让BLL抛出一个异常怎么样?

BLL可能正在被ASP使用。Net和Win App，或者其他类库——我认为期望最终消费者本质上“知道”GetPersonByID方法返回null是不公平的(除非使用空类型，我猜)。

My take (for what it's worth) is that my DAL returns NULL if nothing is found. FOR SOME OBJECTS, that's ok - it could be a 0:many list of things, so not having any things is fine (e.g. a list of favourite books). In this case, my BLL returns an empty list. For most single entity things (e.g. user, account, invoice) if I don't have one, then that's definitely a problem and a throw a costly exception. However, seeing as retrieving a user by a unique identifier that's been previously given by the application should always return a user, the exception is a "proper" exception, as in it's exceptional. The end consumer of the BLL (ASP.Net, f'rinstance) only ever expects things to be hunky-dory, so an Unhandled Exception Handler will be used instead of wrapping every single call to GetPersonByID in a try - catch block.

如果我的方法有明显的问题，请让我知道，因为我总是渴望学习。正如其他帖子所说，异常是代价高昂的事情，“先检查”的方法是好的，但异常应该只是例外。

我很喜欢这篇文章，很多关于“视情况而定”的好建议:-)

我同意这里的大多数帖子，它们趋向于零。

我的理由是，生成一个具有非空属性的空对象可能会导致错误。例如，具有int ID属性的实体的初始值为ID = 0，这是一个完全有效的值。如果这个对象，在某些情况下，被保存到数据库中，这将是一件坏事。

对于任何带有迭代器的东西，我总是使用空集合。类似的

foreach (var eachValue in collection ?? new List<Type>(0))

在我看来是代码的味道。集合属性永远不应该为空。

An edge case is String. Many people say, String.IsNullOrEmpty isn't really necessary, but you cannot always distinguish between an empty string and null. Furthermore, some database systems (Oracle) won't distinguish between them at all ('' gets stored as DBNULL), so you're forced to handle them equally. The reason for that is, most string values either come from user input or from external systems, while neither textboxes nor most exchange formats have different representations for '' and null. So even if the user wants to remove a value, he cannot do anything more than clearing the input control. Also the distinction of nullable and non-nullable nvarchar database fields is more than questionable, if your DBMS is not oracle - a mandatory field that allows '' is weird, your UI would never allow this, so your constraints do not map. So the answer here, in my opinion is, handle them equally, always.

Concerning your question regarding exceptions and performance: If you throw an exception which you cannot handle completely in your program logic, you have to abort, at some point, whatever your program is doing, and ask the user to redo whatever he just did. In that case, the performance penalty of a catch is really the least of your worries - having to ask the user is the elephant in the room (which means re-rendering the whole UI, or sending some HTML through the internet). So if you don't follow the anti-pattern of "Program Flow with Exceptions", don't bother, just throw one if it makes sense. Even in borderline cases, such as "Validation Exception", performance is really not an issue, since you have to ask the user again, in any case.

如果您打算表示没有可用的数据，返回null通常是最好的主意。

空对象表示已返回数据，而返回null则明确表示没有返回任何数据。

此外，如果试图访问对象中的成员，返回null将导致null异常，这对于突出显示有bug的代码很有用——试图访问没有任何成员的成员是没有意义的。访问空对象的成员不会失败，这意味着bug不会被发现。

这取决于什么对你的案子最有意义。

返回null是否有意义?“不存在这样的用户”?

或者创建一个默认用户有意义吗?当您可以安全地假设如果用户不存在，则调用代码在请求时希望用户存在时，这是最有意义的。

或者，如果调用代码要求使用无效ID的用户，抛出异常(如“FileNotFound”)是否有意义?

然而，从分离关注点/SRP的角度来看，前两点更为正确。从技术上讲，第一个是最正确的(但只差一点点)——GetUserById应该只负责一件事——获取用户。通过返回其他内容来处理自己的“用户不存在”情况可能违反SRP。如果您确实选择抛出异常，则分隔为不同的check - bool DoesUserExist(id)是合适的。

根据下面大量的评论:如果这是一个api级别的设计问题，这个方法可以类似于“OpenFile”或“readwholfile”。我们正在从某个存储库中“打开”一个用户，并从结果数据中补充对象。在这种情况下，一个例外可能是合适的。也许不是，但也有可能。

所有的方法都是可以接受的——这取决于API/应用程序的上下文。

在我们的业务对象中，我们有两个主要的Get方法:

为了让事情在语境中变得简单，或者你的问题是:

// Returns null if user does not exist
public UserEntity GetUserById(Guid userId)
{
}

// Returns a New User if user does not exist
public UserEntity GetNewOrExistingUserById(Guid userId)
{
}

第一种方法用于获取特定的实体，第二种方法用于在网页上添加或编辑实体。

这使我们能够在使用它们的上下文中两全其美。

我更喜欢null，因为它与空合并操作符(??)兼容。