Optional in Java 8 Cheat Sheet
java.util.Optional in Java 8 is a poor cousin of scala.Option[T] and Data.Maybe in Haskell. But this doesn’t mean it’s not useful.
Join the DZone community and get the full member experience.
Join For Freejava.util.Optional<T> in Java 8 is a poor cousin of scala.Option[T] andData.Maybe in Haskell. But this doesn’t mean it’s not useful. If this concept is new to you, imagine :
Optionalas a container that may or may not contain some value. Just like all references in Java can point to some object or be
null,
Optionmay enclose some (non-null!) reference or be empty.
Turns out that the analogy between
Optionaland nullable references is quite sensible.
Optionalwas introduced in Java 8 so obviously it is not used throughout the standard Java library - and never will be for the backward compatibility reasons. But I recommend you at least giving it a try and using it whenever you have nullable references.
Optionalinstead of plain
nullis statically checked at compile time and much more informative as it clearly indicates that a given variable may be present or not. Of course it requires some discipline - you should never assign
nullto any variable any more.
Usage of option (maybe) pattern is quite controversial and I am not going to step into this discussion. Instead I present you with few use-cases of
nulland how they can be retrofitted to
Optional<T>. In the following examples given variables and types are used:
public void print(String s) {
System.out.println(s);
}
String x = //...
Optional<String> opt = //...xis a String that may be
null,
optis never
null, but may or may not contain some value (present or empty). There are few ways of creating
Optional:
opt = Optional.of(notNull);
opt = Optional.ofNullable(mayBeNull);
opt = Optional.empty();In the first case
Optionalmust contain not
nullvalue and will throw an exception if
nullis passed.
ofNullable()will either return empty or present (set)
Optional.
empty()always return empty
Optional, corresponding to
null. It’s a singleton because
Optional<T>is immutable.
ifPresent() - do something when Optional is set
Tedious
ifstatement:
if (x != null) {
print(x);
}can be replaced with higher-order function
ifPresent():
opt.ifPresent(x -> print(x));
opt.ifPresent(this::print);The latter syntax (method reference) can be used when lambda argument (
String x) matches function formal parameters.
filter() - reject (filter out) certain Optional values.
Sometimes you want to perform some action not only when a reference is set but also when it meets certain condition:
if (x != null && x.contains("ab")) {
print(x);
}This can be replaced with
Optional.filter()that turns present (set)
Optionalto empty
Optionalif underlying value does not meet given predicate. If input
Optionalwas empty, it is returned as-is:
opt.
filter(x -> x.contains("ab")).
ifPresent(this::print);This is equivalent to more imperative:
if(opt.isPresent() && opt.get().contains("ab")) {
print(opt.get());
}map() - transform value if present
Very often you need to apply some transformation on a value, but only if it’s not
null(avoiding
NullPointerException):
if (x != null) {
String t = x.trim();
if (t.length() > 1) {
print(t);
}
}This can be done in much more declarative way using
map():
opt.
map(String::trim).
filter(t -> t.length() > 1).
ifPresent(this::print);This becomes tricky.
Optional.map()applies given function on a value inside
Optional- but only if
Optionalis present. Otherwise nothing happens and
empty()is returned. Remember that the transformation is type-safe - look at generics here:
Optional<String> opt = //...
Optional<Integer> len = opt.map(String::length);If
Optional<String>is present
Optional<Integer> lenis present as well, wrapping length of a
String. But if
optwas empty,
map()over it does nothing except changing generic type.
orElse()/orElseGet() - turning empty Optional<T> to default T
At some point you may wish to unwrap
Optionaland get a hold of real value inside. But you can’t do this if
Optionalis empty. Here is a pre-Java 8 way of handling such scenario:
int len = (x != null)? x.length() : -1;With
Optionalwe can say:
int len = opt.map(String::length).orElse(-1);There is also a version that accepts Supplier<T> if computing default value is slow, expensive or has side-effects:
intlen = opt.
map(String::length).
orElseGet(() -> slowDefault()); //orElseGet(this::slowDefault)flatMap() - we need to go deeper
Imagine you have a function that does not accept
nullbut may produce one:
public String findSimilar(@NotNullString s) //...Using it is a bit cumbersome:
String similarOrNull = x != null? findSimilar(x) : null;With
Optionalit is a bit more straighforward:
Optional<String> similar = opt.map(this::findSimilar);If the function we
map()over returns
null, the result of
map()is an empty
Optional. Otherwise it’s the result of said function wrapped with (present)
Optional. So far so good but why do we return
null-able value if we have
Optional?
public Optional<String> tryFindSimilar(String s) //...Our intentions are clear but using
map()fails to produce correct type. Instead we must use
flatMap():
Optional<Optional<String>> bad = opt.map(this::tryFindSimilar);
Optional<String> similar = opt.flatMap(this::tryFindSimilar);Do you see double
Optional<Optional<...>>? Definitely not what we want. If you are mapping over a function that returns
Optional, use
flatMapinstead. Here is a simplified implementation of this function:
public<U> Optional<U> flatMap(Function<T, Optional<U>> mapper) {
if(!isPresent())
returnempty();
else{
returnmapper.apply(value);
}
}orElseThrow() - lazily throw exceptions on empty Optional
Often we would like to throw an exception if value is not available:
public char firstChar(String s) {
if(s != null&& !s.isEmpty())
returns.charAt(0);
else
throw new IllegalArgumentException();
}This whole method can be replaced with the following idiom:
opt.
filter(s -> !s.isEmpty()).
map(s -> s.charAt(0)).
orElseThrow(IllegalArgumentException::new);We don’t want to create an instance of exception in advance because creating an exception has significant cost.
Bigger example
Imagine we have a
Personwith an
Addressthat has a
validFromdate. All of these can be
null. We would like to know whether
validFromis set and in the past:
private boolean validAddress(NullPerson person) {
if(person != null) {
if(person.getAddress() != null) {
finalInstant validFrom = person.getAddress().getValidFrom();
returnvalidFrom != null&& validFrom.isBefore(now());
} else
return false;
} else
return false;
}Quite ugly and defensive. Alternatively but still ugly:
returnperson != null&&
person.getAddress() != null&&
person.getAddress().getValidFrom() != null&&
person.getAddress().getValidFrom().isBefore(now());Now imagine all of these (
person,
getAddress(),
getValidFrom()) are
Optionals of appropriate types, clearly indicating they may not be set:
class Person {
private final Optional<Address> address;
public Optional<Address> getAddress() {
return address;
}
//...
}
class Address {
private final Optional<Instant> validFrom;
public Optional<Instant> getValidFrom() {
return validFrom;
}
//...
}Suddenly the computation is much more streamlined:
returnperson.
flatMap(Person::getAddress).
flatMap(Address::getValidFrom).
filter(x -> x.before(now())).
isPresent();Is it more readable? Hard to tell. But at least it’s impossible to produce
NullPointerExceptionwhen
Optionalis used consistently.
Converting Optional<T> to List<T>
I sometimes like to think about
Optionalas a collection1 having either 0 or 1 elements. This may make understanding of
map()and
flatMap()easier. Unfortunately
Optionaldoesn’t have
toList()method, but it’s easy to implement one:
public static<T> List<T> toList(Optional<T> option) {
return option.
map(Collections::singletonList).
orElse(Collections.emptyList());
}Or less idiomatically:
public static<T> List<T> toList(Optional<T> option) {
if(option.isPresent())
return Collections.singletonList(option.get());
else
return Collections.emptyList();
}But why limit ourselves to
List<T>? What about
Set<T> and other collections? Java 8 already abstracts creating arbitrary collection via Collectors API, introduced for Streams. The API is hideous but comprehensible:
public static<R, A, T> R collect(Optional<T> option, Collector<? superT, A, R> collector) {
finalA container = collector.supplier().get();
option.ifPresent(v -> collector.accumulator().accept(container, v));
return collector.finisher().apply(container);
}We can now say:
import static java.util.stream.Collectors.*;
List<String> list = collect(opt, toList());
Set<String> set = collect(opt, toSet());Summary
Optional<T>is not nearly as powerful as
Option[T] in Scala (but at least it doesn’t allow wrapping null). The API is not as straightforward as
null-handling and probably much slower. But the benefit of compile-time checking plus readability and documentation value of
Optional used consistently greatly outperforms disadvantages. Also it will probably replace nearly identical com.google.common.base.Optional<T> from Guava
1 - from theoretical point of view both maybe and sequence abstractions are monads, that’s why they share some functionality
Published at DZone with permission of Tomasz Nurkiewicz. See the original article here.
Opinions expressed by DZone contributors are their own.
Comments