如果它是一个setter方法，并且null被传递给它，我认为抛出一个IllegalArgumentException会更有意义。NullPointerException似乎在尝试实际使用null的情况下更有意义。

如果你在使用它，它是空的，NullPointer。如果它被传入并且它为空，则为非法参数。

根据您的场景，IllegalArgumentException是最好的选择，因为null不是属性的有效值。

如果它是一个“setter”，或者我要获取一个成员稍后使用的地方，我倾向于使用IllegalArgumentException。

如果它是我现在要在方法中使用(解引用)的东西，我主动抛出一个NullPointerException。我更喜欢这样做，而不是让运行时来做，因为我可以提供有用的消息(似乎运行时也可以这样做，但这是另一天的咆哮)。

如果我重写一个方法，我使用被重写的方法使用的任何东西。

我倾向于遵循JDK库的设计，特别是集合和并发(Joshua Bloch, Doug Lea，这些人知道如何设计可靠的api)。不管怎样，JDK中的许多api都会主动抛出NullPointerException。

例如，Javadoc For Map。containsKey状态:

如果键为空，则@抛出NullPointerException 不允许空键(可选)。

举办自己的NPE是完全合理的。约定是在异常消息中包含为空的参数名。

模式是这样的:

public void someMethod(Object mustNotBeNull) {  
    if (mustNotBeNull == null) {  
        throw new NullPointerException("mustNotBeNull must not be null");  
    }  
}

无论您做什么，都不要允许设置一个错误的值，并在其他代码尝试使用它时抛出异常。这使得调试成为一场噩梦。你应该始终遵循“快速失败”的原则。

抛出一个排除空参数的异常(无论是NullPointerException还是自定义类型)使得自动化空测试更加可靠。这种自动化测试可以通过反射和一组默认值来完成，就像在Guava的NullPointerTester中一样。例如，NullPointerTester将尝试调用以下方法…

Foo(String string, List<?> list) {
  checkArgument(string.length() > 0);
  // missing null check for list!
  this.string = string;
  this.list = list;
}

...with two lists of arguments: "", null and null, ImmutableList.of(). It would test that each of these calls throws the expected NullPointerException. For this implementation, passing a null list does not produce NullPointerException. It does, however, happen to produce an IllegalArgumentException because NullPointerTester happens to use a default string of "". If NullPointerTester expects only NullPointerException for null values, it catches the bug. If it expects IllegalArgumentException, it misses it.

给杰森·科恩的论点投了一票，因为它表现得很好。让我一步一步地分解它。: -)

The NPE JavaDoc explicitly says, "other illegal uses of the null object". If it was just limited to situations where the runtime encounters a null when it shouldn't, all such cases could be defined far more succinctly. Can't help it if you assume the wrong thing, but assuming encapsulation is applied properly, you really shouldn't care or notice whether a null was dereferenced inappropriately vs. whether a method detected an inappropriate null and fired an exception off. I'd choose NPE over IAE for multiple reasons It is more specific about the nature of the illegal operation Logic that mistakenly allows nulls tends to be very different from logic that mistakenly allows illegal values. For example, if I'm validating data entered by a user, if I get value that is unacceptable, the source of that error is with the end user of the application. If I get a null, that's programmer error. Invalid values can cause things like stack overflows, out of memory errors, parsing exceptions, etc. Indeed, most errors generally present, at some point, as an invalid value in some method call. For this reason I see IAE as actually the MOST GENERAL of all exceptions under RuntimeException. Actually, other invalid arguments can result in all kinds of other exceptions. UnknownHostException, FileNotFoundException, a variety of syntax error exceptions, IndexOutOfBoundsException, authentication failures, etc., etc.

总的来说，我觉得NPE受到了很大的诋毁，因为传统上一直与未能遵循快速失效原则的代码联系在一起。再加上JDK未能用消息字符串填充NPE，这确实产生了一种强烈的负面情绪，这种情绪是没有根据的。实际上，从运行时的角度来看，NPE和IAE之间的区别仅限于名称。从这个角度来看，你的名字越精确，你给调用者的信息就越清晰。