一般来说，开发人员不应该抛出NullPointerException异常。当代码试图解引用值为null的变量时，运行时将引发此异常。因此，如果你的方法想要显式禁止null，而不是恰好有一个空值引发一个NullPointerException，你应该抛出一个IllegalArgumentException。

作为一个主观问题，这应该是封闭的，但它仍然是开放的:

这是我以前工作的地方使用的内部政策的一部分，效果非常好。这些都是我的记忆，所以我不记得确切的措辞。值得注意的是，他们没有使用受控异常，但这超出了问题的范围。他们使用的未检查异常主要分为3类。

NullPointerException:不故意抛出。npe只有在解引用空引用时才会被VM抛出。要尽一切可能的努力确保这些错误永远不会被抛出。@Nullable和@NotNull应该与代码分析工具一起使用来发现这些错误。

IllegalArgumentException:当函数的参数不符合公共文档时抛出，这样就可以根据传入的参数识别和描述错误。OP的情况就属于这一类。

IllegalStateException:当调用函数时，其实参在传递时是意外的，或者与方法所属对象的状态不兼容时抛出。

例如，在有长度的事物中使用IndexOutOfBoundsException的两个内部版本。一个是IllegalStateException的子类，在索引大于长度时使用。另一个是IllegalArgumentException的子类，用于索引为负的情况。这是因为您可以向对象添加更多的项，并且参数将是有效的，而负数永远无效。

正如我所说，这个系统工作得非常好，有人解释了为什么会有这样的区别:“根据错误的类型，你很容易就能弄清楚该怎么做。即使您无法真正找出出错的地方，也可以找出在哪里捕获错误并创建额外的调试信息。”

NullPointerException:处理Null情况或放入断言，这样NPE就不会被抛出。如果你输入的断言只是另外两种类型中的一种。如果可能，继续调试，就像断言一开始就在那里一样。

IllegalArgumentException:你的调用站点有错误。如果传入的值来自另一个函数，请查明为什么接收到不正确的值。如果传入一个参数，则会在调用堆栈中进行错误检查，直到找到没有返回预期值的函数。

您没有按照正确的顺序调用函数。如果您正在使用其中一个参数，请检查它们并抛出IllegalArgumentException描述该问题。然后，您可以在堆栈上传播腮部，直到找到问题。

不管怎样，他的观点是你只能把IllegalArgumentAssertions复制到堆栈上。您无法将illegalstateexception或nullpointerexception传播到堆栈上，因为它们与您的函数有关。

如果你不希望null是一个允许的值，似乎会调用IllegalArgumentException，如果你试图使用一个结果为null的变量，则会抛出NullPointerException。

实际上，在我看来，抛出IllegalArgumentException或NullPointerException的问题只是对Java中不完全理解异常处理的少数人的“圣战”。一般来说，规则很简单，如下:

argument constraint violations must be indicated as fast as possible (-> fast fail), in order to avoid illegal states which are much harder to debug in case of an invalid null pointer for whatever reason, throw NullPointerException in case of an illegal array/collection index, throw ArrayIndexOutOfBounds in case of a negative array/collection size, throw NegativeArraySizeException in case of an illegal argument that is not covered by the above, and for which you don't have another more specific exception type, throw IllegalArgumentException as a wastebasket on the other hand, in case of a constraint violation WITHIN A FIELD that could not be avoided by fast fail for some valid reason, catch and rethrow as IllegalStateException or a more specific checked exception. Never let pass the original NullPointerException, ArrayIndexOutOfBounds, etc in this case!

至少有三个非常好的理由反对将所有类型的参数约束违反映射到IllegalArgumentException，第三个理由可能非常严重，以至于标志着这种做法的糟糕风格:

(1) A programmer cannot a safely assume that all cases of argument constraint violations result in IllegalArgumentException, because the large majority of standard classes use this exception rather as a wastebasket if there is no more specific kind of exception available. Trying to map all cases of argument constraint violations to IllegalArgumentException in your API only leads to programmer frustration using your classes, as the standard libraries mostly follow different rules that violate yours, and most of your API users will use them as well!

(2) Mapping the exceptions actually results in a different kind of anomaly, caused by single inheritance: All Java exceptions are classes, and therefore support single inheritance only. Therefore, there is no way to create an exception that is truly say both a NullPointerException and an IllegalArgumentException, as subclasses can only inherit from one or the other. Throwing an IllegalArgumentException in case of a null argument therefore makes it harder for API users to distinguish between problems whenever a program tries to programmatically correct the problem, for example by feeding default values into a call repeat!

(3) Mapping actually creates the danger of bug masking: In order to map argument constraint violations into IllegalArgumentException, you'll need to code an outer try-catch within every method that has any constrained arguments. However, simply catching RuntimeException in this catch block is out of the question, because that risks mapping documented RuntimeExceptions thrown by libery methods used within yours into IllegalArgumentException, even if they are no caused by argument constraint violations. So you need to be very specific, but even that effort doesn't protect you from the case that you accidentally map an undocumented runtime exception of another API (i.e. a bug) into an IllegalArgumentException of your API. Even the most careful mapping therefore risks masking programming errors of other library makers as argument constraint violations of your method's users, which is simply hillareous behavior!

With the standard practice on the other hand, the rules stay simple, and exception causes stay unmasked and specific. For the method caller, the rules are easy as well: - if you encounter a documented runtime exception of any kind because you passed an illegal value, either repeat the call with a default (for this specific exceptions are neccessary), or correct your code - if on the other hand you enccounter a runtime exception that is not documented to happen for a given set of arguments, file a bug report to the method's makers to ensure that either their code or their documentation is fixed.

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。

你应该使用IllegalArgumentException (IAE)，而不是NullPointerException (NPE)，原因如下:

首先，NPE JavaDoc显式地列出了适用于NPE的情况。请注意，当不恰当地使用null时，所有这些都是由运行时抛出的。相比之下，IAE JavaDoc再清楚不过了:“抛出是为了表明一个方法被传递了一个非法或不适当的参数。”没错，就是你!

其次，当您在堆栈跟踪中看到NPE时，您会假设什么?可能有人解引用了一个null。当您看到IAE时，您假定堆栈顶部的方法调用方传递了一个非法值。同样，后一种假设是正确的，前一种假设具有误导性。

第三，由于IAE显然是为验证参数而设计的，因此必须假设它是默认的异常选择，那么为什么要选择NPE呢?当然不是针对不同的行为——你真的期望调用代码分别捕获NPE和IAE，并因此做一些不同的事情吗?您是否试图传达更具体的错误消息?但是无论如何，您都可以在异常消息文本中这样做，就像处理所有其他不正确的参数一样。

第四，其他所有不正确的参数数据都会被IAE，为什么不一致呢?为什么非法null是如此特殊，以至于它应该从所有其他类型的非法参数中获得一个单独的异常?

最后，我接受其他答案给出的论点，即Java API的某些部分以这种方式使用NPE。然而，从异常类型到命名约定，Java API与所有内容都不一致，因此我认为仅仅盲目地复制(您最喜欢的部分)Java API并不是一个足以胜过这些其他考虑因素的好理由。