RFR 9: 8138963 : java.lang.Objects new method to default to non-null

[Brian Goetz]

The semantics of require* here was that it should throw if the precondition is violated.  That lead to a different naming direction than the current use case, in which null is an expected value rather than an error.  

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 9, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Stephen Colebourne <scolebourne at joda.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 9 October 2015 at 01:31, John Rose <john.r.rose at oracle.com> wrote:
>> This leads me to yet another bikeshed color, FWIW:
>> 
>> - T requireNonNull(T) (cf. Optional::get)
>> - T requireNonNullElse(T,T) (cf. Optional::orElse)
>> - T requireNonNullElseGet(T,Supplier<T>) (cf. Optional::orElseGet)
>> - T requireNonNullElseThrow(T,Supplier<X>) (cf. Optional::orElseThrow)
>> - T requireNonNull(T,String) (shorthand for common use of requireNonNullElseThrow)
> 
> Note that there is already a new method in JDK 8 not listed above:
> requireNonNull(T, Supplier<String>)
> As such, I'm not convinced that requireNonNullElseThrow will pull its weight.
> 
> I can see the benefits of this consistency of naming. (FWIW, I think
> the "require" prefix was a mistake, but that ship has sailed). If this
> naming is chosen, I'd like to see all the methods next to one another
> in the source file, which involves moving the method added in JDK 8.
> 
> Stephen