The truth about Optional

Posted by Sourced Blog on January 6, 2017 855 words, 4 minute read

In my previous article I highlighted a question I had regarding clean architecture and clean code, and how to apply it to REST endpoints using 2 of the most prolific frameworks currently being used in Java.

Since writing that article, I did some more digging. Not into the problem with REST but into the reasoning behind the very limited allowed applications of Optional. I’ll start off with the only use-case Optional was intended for: as a return type.

This actually makes perfect sense. We’ve all learned with Clean Code that you should try to limit returning nulls. If your method returns a Collection, it’s preferred to return an empty one instead of null. Optional actually gives you the flexibility to do this for any object, keeping in mind that you should never, ever return null for an Optional (and you should be chastised if you ever do this). However this does not imply that your internal fields cannot use null. You should still use basic objects in your private state because of a few reasons. One of them is performance. A null reference does not take up any memory size on the heap, an Optional takes up 16 bytes, even if it points to no value. It doesn’t sound like a lot until you start using Optional everywhere for, well, optional, fields. The other reason is the fact that Optional is not serializable. This has been done intentionally, because the creators of Optional wanted to leave the room for making it a value object in a later version of Java.

In my article, I used Optional as a parameter. While this might seem like a good idea at first, this quickly turns ugly when you have multiple parameters like that in your interface. Suddenly, you have an unreadable method invocation like this.

service.createProduct(name, Optional.empty(), Optional.empty(), price);

Most of the time, if you’re using Optional, you should either us overloaded methods or use a parameter objects. Both options allow you to specify which combination is valid, either through its signature or through validation of the parameter object. Off course you’ll have to implement the latter yourself.

Using a parameter object also is the solution to the problem of the last article. Both Spring MVC and Jersey can handle complex objects to handle query parameters: Spring MVC will handle any property in a non-annotated parameter as a query parameter, Jersey needs a @BeanParam annotation. With Spring MVC for example the REST endpoint would now become this.

public List<BuildingJson> find(ListBuildingsRequestParams params)  {
	return listBuildings.execute(params.toRequest(), new JsonBuildingResponseModelPresenter());

The params object itself looks like this.

public class ListBuildingsRequestParams {
	private String nameStartsWith;

	private Optional<String> getNameStartsWith() {
		return Optional.ofNullable(nameStartsWith);

	public void setNameStartsWith(String nameStartsWith) {
		this.nameStartsWith = nameStartsWith;

	public ListBuildingsRequest toRequest() {
		final ListBuildingsRequest.Builder builder = new ListBuildingsRequest.Builder();

As you can see, Optional is only used as a return value to wrap a nullable reference. This way in the toRequest method you can use ifPresent to correctly build the request. You do need the ugly getter/setter combination, but that’s Spring MVC not being able to handle it otherwise. As if Spring MVC knows you might abuse this: Optional fields aren’t supported nicely out of the box, if you omit a query parameter, the value of the field will be null, not Optional.empty(). So don’t do it.

While you did add another class, it’s actually more in line with clean code standards, especially if you have multiple query parameters. Even though you’ll never call those methods directly, the standard of a maximum amount of parameters still applies and adding parameter objects is a good reflex anyways.

This comes to show that you always need to do double-loop learning when looking at a problem. In my case, I focussed too much on the usage of Optional and was trying to use it in place where it shouldn’t have been used in the first place. It also reinforces my belief that you need to adhere to clean code standards whenever you can. If I had done so, I’d probably have introduced a parameter object from the beginning.

So my final thought is: if you’re using Optional for anything else than a return type: stop. You don’t need it.