我倾向于遵循JDK库的设计，特别是集合和并发(Joshua Bloch, Doug Lea，这些人知道如何设计可靠的api)。不管怎样，JDK中的许多api都会主动抛出NullPointerException。

例如，Javadoc For Map。containsKey状态:

如果键为空，则@抛出NullPointerException 不允许空键(可选)。

举办自己的NPE是完全合理的。约定是在异常消息中包含为空的参数名。

模式是这样的:

public void someMethod(Object mustNotBeNull) {  
    if (mustNotBeNull == null) {  
        throw new NullPointerException("mustNotBeNull must not be null");  
    }  
}

无论您做什么，都不要允许设置一个错误的值，并在其他代码尝试使用它时抛出异常。这使得调试成为一场噩梦。你应该始终遵循“快速失败”的原则。

实际上，在我看来，抛出IllegalArgumentException或NullPointerException的问题只是对Java中不完全理解异常处理的少数人的“圣战”。一般来说，规则很简单，如下:

argument constraint violations must be indicated as fast as possible (-> fast fail), in order to avoid illegal states which are much harder to debug in case of an invalid null pointer for whatever reason, throw NullPointerException in case of an illegal array/collection index, throw ArrayIndexOutOfBounds in case of a negative array/collection size, throw NegativeArraySizeException in case of an illegal argument that is not covered by the above, and for which you don't have another more specific exception type, throw IllegalArgumentException as a wastebasket on the other hand, in case of a constraint violation WITHIN A FIELD that could not be avoided by fast fail for some valid reason, catch and rethrow as IllegalStateException or a more specific checked exception. Never let pass the original NullPointerException, ArrayIndexOutOfBounds, etc in this case!

至少有三个非常好的理由反对将所有类型的参数约束违反映射到IllegalArgumentException，第三个理由可能非常严重，以至于标志着这种做法的糟糕风格:

(1) A programmer cannot a safely assume that all cases of argument constraint violations result in IllegalArgumentException, because the large majority of standard classes use this exception rather as a wastebasket if there is no more specific kind of exception available. Trying to map all cases of argument constraint violations to IllegalArgumentException in your API only leads to programmer frustration using your classes, as the standard libraries mostly follow different rules that violate yours, and most of your API users will use them as well!

(2) Mapping the exceptions actually results in a different kind of anomaly, caused by single inheritance: All Java exceptions are classes, and therefore support single inheritance only. Therefore, there is no way to create an exception that is truly say both a NullPointerException and an IllegalArgumentException, as subclasses can only inherit from one or the other. Throwing an IllegalArgumentException in case of a null argument therefore makes it harder for API users to distinguish between problems whenever a program tries to programmatically correct the problem, for example by feeding default values into a call repeat!

(3) Mapping actually creates the danger of bug masking: In order to map argument constraint violations into IllegalArgumentException, you'll need to code an outer try-catch within every method that has any constrained arguments. However, simply catching RuntimeException in this catch block is out of the question, because that risks mapping documented RuntimeExceptions thrown by libery methods used within yours into IllegalArgumentException, even if they are no caused by argument constraint violations. So you need to be very specific, but even that effort doesn't protect you from the case that you accidentally map an undocumented runtime exception of another API (i.e. a bug) into an IllegalArgumentException of your API. Even the most careful mapping therefore risks masking programming errors of other library makers as argument constraint violations of your method's users, which is simply hillareous behavior!

With the standard practice on the other hand, the rules stay simple, and exception causes stay unmasked and specific. For the method caller, the rules are easy as well: - if you encounter a documented runtime exception of any kind because you passed an illegal value, either repeat the call with a default (for this specific exceptions are neccessary), or correct your code - if on the other hand you enccounter a runtime exception that is not documented to happen for a given set of arguments, file a bug report to the method's makers to ensure that either their code or their documentation is fixed.

理想情况下，不应该抛出运行时异常。应该为您的场景创建一个受控异常(业务异常)。因为如果这些异常中的任何一个被抛出并记录下来，它就会误导开发人员在查看日志时。相反，业务异常不会造成这种恐慌，并且在故障排除日志时通常会被忽略。

标准是抛出NullPointerException。通常不会出错的“有效Java”在第42项(第一版)、第60项(第二版)或第72项(第三版)中简要讨论了这一点。“赞成使用标准异常”:

可以说，都是错误的方法 调用归结为非法 争论或非法国家，但其他 异常通常用于 一些不合法的论点 州。如果调用方传入null 某个参数，其值为空 是被禁止的吗 NullPointerException被抛出 而不是IllegalArgumentException。”

我完全赞成为空参数抛出IllegalArgumentException，直到今天，当我注意到Java 7中的Java .util. objects . requirenonnull方法时。用这种方法，而不是做:

if (param == null) {
    throw new IllegalArgumentException("param cannot be null.");
}

你可以:

Objects.requireNonNull(param);

如果你传递给它的参数为空，它会抛出一个NullPointerException。

考虑到这个方法正好在java的中间。util我认为它的存在是一个非常强烈的迹象，抛出NullPointerException是“Java做事的方式”。

我想我已经决定了。

注意，关于硬调试的参数是虚假的，因为您当然可以向NullPointerException提供一条消息，说明什么是null，以及为什么它不应该是null。就像IllegalArgumentException。

One added advantage of NullPointerException is that, in highly performance critical code, you could dispense with an explicit check for null (and a NullPointerException with a friendly error message), and just rely on the NullPointerException you'll get automatically when you call a method on the null parameter. Provided you call a method quickly (i.e. fail fast), then you have essentially the same effect, just not quite as user friendly for the developer. Most times it's probably better to check explicitly and throw with a useful message to indicate which parameter was null, but it's nice to have the option of changing that if performance dictates without breaking the published contract of the method/constructor.

二分法……它们不重叠吗?只有整体中不重叠的部分才能构成二分法。在我看来:

throw new IllegalArgumentException(new NullPointerException(NULL_ARGUMENT_IN_METHOD_BAD_BOY_BAD));