在数据层代码中，我有时使用以下代码，允许调用者决定“对象未找到”是否意味着发生了错误。

DataType GetObject(DBConnection conn, string id, bool throwOnNotFound) {
    DataType retval = ... // find object in database
    if (retval != null || ! throwOnNotFound) {
        return retval;
    } else {
        throw new NoRowsFoundException("DataType object with id {id} not found in database");
    }
}

DataType GetObject(DBConnection conn, string id) {
    return GetObject(conn, id, true);
} 

如果您总是希望找到一个值，那么如果缺少该值则抛出异常。这个例外意味着有问题。

如果该值可以缺失或存在，并且两者都对应用程序逻辑有效，则返回null。

更重要的是:在代码的其他地方做什么?一致性很重要。

抛出异常的好处:

Cleaner control flow in your calling code. Checking for null injects a conditional branch which is natively handled by try/catch. Checking for null doesn't indicate what it is you're checking for - are you checking for null because you're looking for an error you're expecting, or are you checking for null so you don't pass it further on downchain? Removes ambiguity of what "null" means. Is null representative of an error or is null what is actually stored in the value? Hard to say when you only have one thing to base that determination off of. Improved consistency between method behavior in an application. Exceptions are typically exposed in method signatures, so you're more able to understand what edge cases the methods in an application account for, and what information your application can react to in a predictable manner.

有关更多示例的解释，请参见:http://metatations.com/2011/11/17/returning-null-vs-throwing-an-exception/

与您正在使用的API保持一致。

我更喜欢只返回null，并依赖于调用者来适当地处理它。(因为没有更好的词)例外是，如果我绝对“确定”这个方法将返回一个对象。在这种情况下，失败是一个例外，应该和应该抛出。

或者返回一个Option

选项基本上是一个容器类，它强制客户端处理展位案例。Scala有这个概念，查查它的API。

然后你在这个对象上有T getOrElse(T valueIfNull)这样的方法，它们要么返回找到的对象，要么返回客户端指定的替代对象。