|
|
|
|
|
|
by coliveira
6064 days ago
|
|
|
> Isn't it the case that a calling a method with (say) null parameters where they are supposed to be non-null should raise an exception? Not really. Checking parameters in every method (especially an OO system) is a sure way to have poor performance. Null values as other kinds of testing should be done in the areas of the system that create and receive objects from outside. Normal methods should just work find even if a parameter is NULL. Although this doesn't look nice, it is a way to make the system testable, in the absence of true NullObjects. |
|
|
This seems overly general to me. I'm not sure it's a "sure way to have poor performance." It seems to me that (for example) a null-check is pretty fast.
> Normal methods should just work find even if a parameter is NULL.
What's a "normal method"? And if the business logic of the method requires a particular parameter to be non-null (or has some other constraint), what should happen when a null parameter is passed-in (by a test or otherwise)?