java.util.Objects.isNull vs object == null

As you know, java.util.Objects is

> This class consists of static utility methods for operating on objects.

One of such methods is Objects.isNull().

My understanding is that Objects.isNull() would remove the chance of accidentally assigning a null value to object by omitting the second =.

However, the API Note states:

> This method exists to be used as a Predicate, filter(Objects::isNull)

Would there be any reason/circumstance for which I should use object == null over Objects.isNull() in an if statement?

Should Objects.isNull() be confined to Predicates exclusively?

>should use object == null over Objects.isNull() in a if statement?

If you look at the source code of IsNull method,

 /* Returns true if the provided reference is null otherwise returns false.*/

 public static boolean isNull(Object obj) {
     return obj == null;
 }

It is the same. There is no difference. So you can use it safely.

Objects.isNull is intended for use within Java 8 lambda filtering.

It's much easier and clearer to write:

.stream().filter(Objects::isNull) 

than to write:

.stream().filter(x -> x == null).  

Within an if statement, however, either will work. The use of == null is probably easier to read but in the end it will boil down to a style preference.

Look at the source:

public static boolean isNull(Object obj) {
    return obj == null;
}

To check for null values, you can use:

• Objects.isNull(myObject)
• null == myObject // avoids assigning by typo
• myObject == null // risk of typo

The fact that Objects.isNull is meant for Predicates does not prevent you from using it as above.

>Would there be any reason/circumstance for which I should use object == null over Objects.isNull() in a if statement?

Yes, one reason is to keep the code simple. Within if statement object == null is clear and well known. It can not lead to any misbehavior if for example there is a typo.

>My understanding is that Objects.isNull() would remove the chance of accidentally assigning a null value to object by omitting the second =.

If there is an if (object = null) {} with omitted = it will not compile or it will generate warning in case of Boolean object! Actually there is no reason to use Objects.isNull(object) over object == null within if statement. Here are the two variants side by side:

if (object == null) {
}

if (Objects.isNull(object)) {
}

>Should Objects.isNull() be confined to Predicates exclusively?

It could be said yes, it is confined to Predicates exclusively, although there is no technical hurdle to use the Objects.isNull() everywhere.

From the public static boolean isNull(Object obj) method's javadoc: >@apiNoteThis method exists to be used as a java.util.function.Predicate, filter(Objects::isNull)

So if you use the method as not a predicate you are actually using a more complex and cumbersome expression compared to the simple object == null.

Here is a snippet to compare the benefit of Objects.isNull(object)

List<String> list = Arrays.asList("a", "b", null, "c", null);

// As ready-made predicate
long countNullsWithPredicate = list.stream().filter(Objects::isNull).count();

// Lambda
long countNullsWithLambda = list.stream().filter(object -> object == null).count();

// Reimplement the Objects::isNull predicate
long countNullsWithAnonymous = list.stream().filter(new Predicate<Object>() {
	@Override
	public boolean test(Object obj) {
		return obj == null;
	}
}).count();

Semantically there is no difference but for readability I prefer the following over whatever == null:

import static java.util.Objects.isNull;

// Other stuff...

if(isNull(whatever)) { 
 
}