Re: [infinispan-dev] Strategy to adopting Optional in APIs

I'm for "at discretion" and "avoid if not really needed" : not cool to allocate objects for no reason. On 30 Mar 2017 16:57, "Radim Vansa" <rvansa(a)redhat.com <mailto:rvansa@redhat.com>> wrote: Hi, I was wondering what's the common attitude towards using Optional in APIs, and what naming pattern should we use. As an example, I dislike calling if (entry.getMetadata() != null && entry.getMetadata().version() != null) { foo.use(entry.getMetadata().version()) } where I could just do entry.metadata().flatMap(Metadata::optionalVersion).ifPresent(foo::use) Here I have proposed metadata() method returning Optional<Metadata> (regular getter method is called getMetadata()) and annoying optionalVersion() as version() is the regular getter. Shall we adopt some common stance (use/don't use/use at developer's discretion) and naming conventions? Is it acceptable to start adding default Optional<Foo> foo() { Optional.ofNullable(getFoo()); } whenever we feel the urge to chain Optionals? Radim -- Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com <mailto:rvansa@redhat.com>> JBoss Performance Team _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev> _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev