我有一个简单的setter方法的属性和空是不适合这个特定的属性。在这种情况下,我总是被撕裂:我应该抛出一个IllegalArgumentException,还是一个NullPointerException?从javadocs来看,两者都很合适。是否存在某种公认的标准?或者这只是其中一件事,你应该做任何你喜欢做的事情,两种都是正确的?


当前回答

您应该抛出一个IllegalArgumentException,因为这将使程序员清楚地知道他做了一些无效的事情。开发人员太习惯于看到VM抛出的NPE,以至于任何程序员都不会立即意识到自己的错误,并开始随机查看,或者更糟糕的是,指责你的代码“有bug”。

其他回答

我想从其他非法参数中挑出Null参数,所以我从IAE派生了一个名为NullArgumentException的异常。甚至不需要读取异常消息,我就知道一个空参数被传递到一个方法中,并且通过读取消息,我找到了哪个参数为空。我仍然用IAE处理程序捕获NullArgumentException,但在我的日志中,我可以快速看到差异。

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.

理想情况下,不应该抛出运行时异常。应该为您的场景创建一个受控异常(业务异常)。因为如果这些异常中的任何一个被抛出并记录下来,它就会误导开发人员在查看日志时。相反,业务异常不会造成这种恐慌,并且在故障排除日志时通常会被忽略。

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。

我完全同意你说的话。早失败,快失败。非常好的异常咒语。

抛出哪个Exception主要是个人喜好的问题。在我看来,IllegalArgumentException似乎比使用NPE更具体,因为它告诉我问题是我传递给方法的参数,而不是执行方法时可能生成的值。

我的2美分