There are several differences between HashMap
and Hashtable
in Java:
Hashtable
is synchronized, whereas HashMap
is not. This makes HashMap
better for non-threaded applications, as unsynchronized Objects typically perform better than synchronized ones.
Hashtable
does not allow null
keys or values. HashMap
allows one null
key and any number of null
values.
One of HashMap's subclasses is LinkedHashMap
, so in the event that you'd want predictable iteration order (which is insertion order by default), you could easily swap out the HashMap
for a LinkedHashMap
. This wouldn't be as easy if you were using Hashtable
.
Since synchronization is not an issue for you, I'd recommend HashMap
. If synchronization becomes an issue, you may also look at ConcurrentHashMap
.
Java is always pass-by-value. Unfortunately, when we deal with objects we are really dealing with object-handles called references which are passed-by-value as well. This terminology and semantics easily confuse many beginners.
It goes like this:
public static void main(String[] args) {
Dog aDog = new Dog("Max");
Dog oldDog = aDog;
// we pass the object to foo
foo(aDog);
// aDog variable is still pointing to the "Max" dog when foo(...) returns
aDog.getName().equals("Max"); // true
aDog.getName().equals("Fifi"); // false
aDog == oldDog; // true
}
public static void foo(Dog d) {
d.getName().equals("Max"); // true
// change d inside of foo() to point to a new Dog instance "Fifi"
d = new Dog("Fifi");
d.getName().equals("Fifi"); // true
}
In the example above aDog.getName()
will still return "Max"
. The value aDog
within main
is not changed in the function foo
with the Dog
"Fifi"
as the object reference is passed by value. If it were passed by reference, then the aDog.getName()
in main
would return "Fifi"
after the call to foo
.
Likewise:
public static void main(String[] args) {
Dog aDog = new Dog("Max");
Dog oldDog = aDog;
foo(aDog);
// when foo(...) returns, the name of the dog has been changed to "Fifi"
aDog.getName().equals("Fifi"); // true
// but it is still the same dog:
aDog == oldDog; // true
}
public static void foo(Dog d) {
d.getName().equals("Max"); // true
// this changes the name of d to be "Fifi"
d.setName("Fifi");
}
In the above example, Fifi
is the dog's name after call to foo(aDog)
because the object's name was set inside of foo(...)
. Any operations that foo
performs on d
are such that, for all practical purposes, they are performed on aDog
, but it is not possible to change the value of the variable aDog
itself.
For more information on pass by reference and pass by value, consult the following SO answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/430958/6005228. This explains more thoroughly the semantics and history behind the two and also explains why Java and many other modern languages appear to do both in certain cases.
Best Solution
This to me sounds like a reasonably common problem that junior to intermediate developers tend to face at some point: they either don't know or don't trust the contracts they are participating in and defensively overcheck for nulls. Additionally, when writing their own code, they tend to rely on returning nulls to indicate something thus requiring the caller to check for nulls.
To put this another way, there are two instances where null checking comes up:
Where null is a valid response in terms of the contract; and
Where it isn't a valid response.
(2) is easy. Either use
assert
statements (assertions) or allow failure (for example, NullPointerException). Assertions are a highly-underused Java feature that was added in 1.4. The syntax is:or
where
<condition>
is a boolean expression and<object>
is an object whosetoString()
method's output will be included in the error.An
assert
statement throws anError
(AssertionError
) if the condition is not true. By default, Java ignores assertions. You can enable assertions by passing the option-ea
to the JVM. You can enable and disable assertions for individual classes and packages. This means that you can validate code with the assertions while developing and testing, and disable them in a production environment, although my testing has shown next to no performance impact from assertions.Not using assertions in this case is OK because the code will just fail, which is what will happen if you use assertions. The only difference is that with assertions it might happen sooner, in a more-meaningful way and possibly with extra information, which may help you to figure out why it happened if you weren't expecting it.
(1) is a little harder. If you have no control over the code you're calling then you're stuck. If null is a valid response, you have to check for it.
If it's code that you do control, however (and this is often the case), then it's a different story. Avoid using nulls as a response. With methods that return collections, it's easy: return empty collections (or arrays) instead of nulls pretty much all the time.
With non-collections it might be harder. Consider this as an example: if you have these interfaces:
where Parser takes raw user input and finds something to do, perhaps if you're implementing a command line interface for something. Now you might make the contract that it returns null if there's no appropriate action. That leads the null checking you're talking about.
An alternative solution is to never return null and instead use the Null Object pattern:
Compare:
to
which is a much better design because it leads to more concise code.
That said, perhaps it is entirely appropriate for the findAction() method to throw an Exception with a meaningful error message -- especially in this case where you are relying on user input. It would be much better for the findAction method to throw an Exception than for the calling method to blow up with a simple NullPointerException with no explanation.
Or if you think the try/catch mechanism is too ugly, rather than Do Nothing your default action should provide feedback to the user.