我同意这里的大多数帖子，它们趋向于零。

我的理由是，生成一个具有非空属性的空对象可能会导致错误。例如，具有int ID属性的实体的初始值为ID = 0，这是一个完全有效的值。如果这个对象，在某些情况下，被保存到数据库中，这将是一件坏事。

对于任何带有迭代器的东西，我总是使用空集合。类似的

foreach (var eachValue in collection ?? new List<Type>(0))

在我看来是代码的味道。集合属性永远不应该为空。

An edge case is String. Many people say, String.IsNullOrEmpty isn't really necessary, but you cannot always distinguish between an empty string and null. Furthermore, some database systems (Oracle) won't distinguish between them at all ('' gets stored as DBNULL), so you're forced to handle them equally. The reason for that is, most string values either come from user input or from external systems, while neither textboxes nor most exchange formats have different representations for '' and null. So even if the user wants to remove a value, he cannot do anything more than clearing the input control. Also the distinction of nullable and non-nullable nvarchar database fields is more than questionable, if your DBMS is not oracle - a mandatory field that allows '' is weird, your UI would never allow this, so your constraints do not map. So the answer here, in my opinion is, handle them equally, always.

Concerning your question regarding exceptions and performance: If you throw an exception which you cannot handle completely in your program logic, you have to abort, at some point, whatever your program is doing, and ask the user to redo whatever he just did. In that case, the performance penalty of a catch is really the least of your worries - having to ask the user is the elephant in the room (which means re-rendering the whole UI, or sending some HTML through the internet). So if you don't follow the anti-pattern of "Program Flow with Exceptions", don't bother, just throw one if it makes sense. Even in borderline cases, such as "Validation Exception", performance is really not an issue, since you have to ask the user again, in any case.

我会说返回null而不是空对象。

但你在这里提到的具体例子， 您正在通过用户id搜索用户，即排序 那个用户的键，在这种情况下，我可能想要 如果没有用户实例，则抛出异常 发现。

这是我通常遵循的规则:

如果通过主键查找操作没有找到结果， 把ObjectNotFoundException。 如按任何其他标准没有发现结果， 返回null。 如果通过非关键条件查找未找到结果，则可能返回多个对象 返回一个空集合。

(仅)在特定契约被破坏时抛出异常。 在您的特定示例中，请求基于已知Id的UserEntity，这将取决于丢失(删除)用户是否是预期情况。如果是，则返回null，但如果不是预期的情况，则抛出异常。 注意，如果函数名为UserEntity GetUserByName(字符串名)，它可能不会抛出而是返回null。在这两种情况下，返回空的UserEntity都没有帮助。

对于字符串、数组和集合，情况通常是不同的。我记得MS的一些指导原则，方法应该接受null作为一个“空”列表，但返回零长度的集合而不是null。字符串也是一样。注意，你可以声明空数组:int[] arr = new int[0];

还有一种方法涉及传入一个回调对象或委托，它将对值进行操作。如果没有找到值，则不调用回调。

public void GetUserById(Guid id, UserCallback callback)
{
    // Lookup user
    if (userFound)
        callback(userEntity);  // or callback.Call(userEntity);
}

当您希望避免在整个代码中进行空检查时，以及当找不到值并不是错误时，这种方法非常有效。如果需要任何特殊处理，还可以在没有找到对象时提供回调。

public void GetUserById(Guid id, UserCallback callback, NotFoundCallback notFound)
{
    // Lookup user
    if (userFound)
        callback(userEntity);  // or callback.Call(userEntity);
    else
        notFound(); // or notFound.Call();
}

使用单个对象的相同方法如下所示:

public void GetUserById(Guid id, UserCallback callback)
{
    // Lookup user
    if (userFound)
        callback.Found(userEntity);
    else
        callback.NotFound();
}

从设计的角度来看，我真的很喜欢这种方法，但是它的缺点是在不支持第一类函数的语言中使调用站点变得更庞大。

如果用户没有被找到的情况经常出现，你想要根据情况以各种方式处理(有时抛出异常，有时替换一个空用户)，你也可以使用接近f#的Option或Haskell的Maybe类型，它显式地将“无值”情况与“发现了一些东西!”数据库访问代码看起来像这样:

public Option<UserEntity> GetUserById(Guid userId)
{
 //Imagine some code here to access database.....

 //Check if data was returned and return a null if none found
 if (!DataExists)
    return Option<UserEntity>.Nothing; 
 else
    return Option.Just(existingUserEntity);
}

并且像这样使用:

Option<UserEntity> result = GetUserById(...);
if (result.IsNothing()) {
    // deal with it
} else {
    UserEntity value = result.GetValue();
}

不幸的是，每个人似乎都有自己喜欢的类型。

更多的肉要磨:让我们说我的DAL返回一个NULL的GetPersonByID，正如一些建议。我的(相当薄)BLL应该做什么，如果它收到一个NULL?传递NULL，并让最终消费者担心它(在这种情况下，一个ASP。网络页面)?让BLL抛出一个异常怎么样?

BLL可能正在被ASP使用。Net和Win App，或者其他类库——我认为期望最终消费者本质上“知道”GetPersonByID方法返回null是不公平的(除非使用空类型，我猜)。

My take (for what it's worth) is that my DAL returns NULL if nothing is found. FOR SOME OBJECTS, that's ok - it could be a 0:many list of things, so not having any things is fine (e.g. a list of favourite books). In this case, my BLL returns an empty list. For most single entity things (e.g. user, account, invoice) if I don't have one, then that's definitely a problem and a throw a costly exception. However, seeing as retrieving a user by a unique identifier that's been previously given by the application should always return a user, the exception is a "proper" exception, as in it's exceptional. The end consumer of the BLL (ASP.Net, f'rinstance) only ever expects things to be hunky-dory, so an Unhandled Exception Handler will be used instead of wrapping every single call to GetPersonByID in a try - catch block.

如果我的方法有明显的问题，请让我知道，因为我总是渴望学习。正如其他帖子所说，异常是代价高昂的事情，“先检查”的方法是好的，但异常应该只是例外。

我很喜欢这篇文章，很多关于“视情况而定”的好建议:-)