On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 12:41:16 GMT, Alan Bateman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> @AlanBateman Thank you for the feedback!
>>
>> ## Analysis:
>>
>> **JEP 358 message advantages:**
>> - More detailed: Shows which method call failed ("String.length()")
>> - More informative: Explains the context of the failure
>>
>> **Objects.requireNonNull advantages:**
>> - Explicit API contract: Makes it clear at method entry that null is not
>> allowed
>> - Fail-fast: Exception occurs at method entry, not deep in the method body
>> - Consistent across JDK versions: Works the same way in JDK 8, 11, 14, 17,
>> etc.
>> - Simpler message: Just the parameter name
>>
>> I understand that with JEP 358, there's less need for explicit null checks
>> in many cases. However, I believe `Objects.requireNonNull` still provides
>> value by:
>> 1. Making the API contract explicit at the method signature level
>> 2. Failing fast before any method body execution
>> 3. Providing consistent behavior across all JDK versions
>>
>> I'm open to feedback on whether this change is appropriate, or if we should
>> rely on JEP 358's automatic messages instead. What would you recommend?
>
>> I'm open to feedback on whether this change is appropriate, or if we should
>> rely on JEP 358's automatic messages instead. What would you recommend?
>
> Would you mind pasting in the existing NPE message and the new NPE message?
Thank you very much for the review. Every line of your feedback is very
valuable to me, @AlanBateman @liach @RogerRiggs
and I've learned a lot from this experience.
Please close the PR. I'm happy to follow your guidance.
-------------
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28869#issuecomment-3677378492
