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> 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>
JBoss Performance Team
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev