Uses for Optional

I'm late to the game but for what it's worth, I want to add my 2 Cents. They go against the design goal of Optional, which is well summarized by Stuart Marks's answer, but I'm still convinced of their validity (obviously).

Use Optional Everywhere

In General

I wrote an entire blog post about using Optional but it basically comes down to this:

• design your classes to avoid optionality wherever feasibly possible
• in all remaining cases, the default should be to use Optional instead of null
• possibly make exceptions for:
  • local variables
  • return values and arguments to private methods
  • performance critical code blocks (no guesses, use a profiler)

The first two exceptions can reduce the perceived overhead of wrapping and unwrapping references in Optional. They are chosen such that a null can never legally pass a boundary from one instance into another.

Note that this will almost never allow Optionals in collections which is almost as bad as nulls. Just don't do it. ;)

Regarding your questions

1. Yes.
2. If overloading is no option, yes.
3. If other approaches (subclassing, decorating, ...) are no option, yes.
4. Please no!

Advantages

Doing this reduces the presence of nulls in your code base, although it does not eradicate them. But that is not even the main point. There are other important advantages:

Clarifies Intent

Using Optional clearly expresses that the variable is, well, optional. Any reader of your code or consumer of your API will be beaten over the head with the fact that there might be nothing there and that a check is necessary before accessing the value.

Removes Uncertainty

Without Optional the meaning of a null occurrence is unclear. It could be a legal representation of a state (see Map.get) or an implementation error like a missing or failed initialization.

This changes dramatically with the persistent use of Optional. Here, already the occurrence of null signifies the presence of a bug. (Because if the value were allowed to be missing, an Optional would have been used.) This makes debugging a null pointer exception much easier as the question of the meaning of this null is already answered.

More Null Checks

Now that nothing can be null anymore, this can be enforced everywhere. Whether with annotations, assertions or plain checks, you never have to think about whether this argument or that return type can be null. It can't!

Disadvantages

Of course, there is no silver bullet...

Performance

Wrapping values (especially primitives) into an extra instance can degrade performance. In tight loops this might become noticeable or even worse.

Note that the compiler might be able to circumvent the extra reference for short lived lifetimes of Optionals. In Java 10 value types might further reduce or remove the penalty.

Serialization

Optional is not serializable but a workaround is not overly complicated.

Invariance

Due to the invariance of generic types in Java, certain operations become cumbersome when the actual value type is pushed into a generic type argument. An example is given here (see "Parametric polymorphism").

The main design goal of Optional is to provide a means for a function returning a value to indicate the absence of a return value. See this discussion. This allows the caller to continue a chain of fluent method calls.

This most closely matches use case #1 in the OP's question. Although, absence of a value is a more precise formulation than null since something like IntStream.findFirst could never return null.

---

For use case #2, passing an optional argument to a method, this could be made to work, but it's rather clumsy. Suppose you have a method that takes a string followed by an optional second string. Accepting an Optional as the second arg would result in code like this:

foo("bar", Optional.of("baz"));
foo("bar", Optional.empty());

Even accepting null is nicer:

foo("bar", "baz");
foo("bar", null);

Probably the best is to have an overloaded method that accepts a single string argument and provides a default for the second:

foo("bar", "baz");
foo("bar");

This does have limitations, but it's much nicer than either of the above.

Use cases #3 and #4, having an Optional in a class field or in a data structure, is considered a misuse of the API. First, it goes against the main design goal of Optional as stated at the top. Second, it doesn't add any value.

There are three ways to deal with the absence of a value in an Optional: to provide a substitute value, to call a function to provide a substitute value, or to throw an exception. If you're storing into a field, you'd do this at initialization or assignment time. If you're adding values into a list, as the OP mentioned, you have the additional choice of simply not adding the value, thereby "flattening" out absent values.

I'm sure somebody could come up with some contrived cases where they really want to store an Optional in a field or a collection, but in general, it is best to avoid doing this.

Personally, I prefer to use IntelliJ's Code Inspection Tool to use @NotNull and @Nullable checks as these are largely compile time (can have some runtime checks) This has lower overhead in terms of code readability and runtime performance. It is not as rigorous as using Optional, however this lack of rigour should be backed by decent unit tests.

public @Nullable Foo findFoo(@NotNull String id);

public @NotNull Foo doSomething(@NotNull String id, @Nullable Bar barOptional);

public class Book {

  private List<Pages> pages;
  private @Nullable Index index;

}

List<@Nullable Foo> list = ..

This works with Java 5 and no need to wrap and unwrap values. (or create wrapper objects)