Functional style of Java 8's Optional.ifPresent and if-not-Present?

Question

In Java 8, I want to do something to an Optional object if it is present, and do another thing if it is not present.

if (opt.isPresent()) {   System.out.println("found"); } else {   System.out.println("Not found"); } 

This is not a 'functional style', though.

Optional has an ifPresent() method, but I am unable to chain an orElse() method.

Thus, I cannot write:

opt.ifPresent( x -> System.out.println("found " + x))    .orElse( System.out.println("NOT FOUND")); 

In reply to @assylias, I don't think Optional.map() works for the following case:

opt.map( o -> {   System.out.println("while opt is present...");   o.setProperty(xxx);   dao.update(o);   return null; }).orElseGet( () -> {   System.out.println("create new obj");   dao.save(new obj);   return null; }); 

In this case, when opt is present, I update its property and save to the database. When it is not available, I create a new obj and save to the database.

Note in the two lambdas I have to return null.

But when opt is present, both lambdas will be executed. obj will be updated, and a new object will be saved to the database . This is because of the return null in the first lambda. And orElseGet() will continue to execute.

Answer 1

If you are using Java 9+, you can use ifPresentOrElse() method:

opt.ifPresentOrElse(    value -> System.out.println("Found: " + value),    () -> System.out.println("Not found") ); 

Answer 2

For me the answer of @Dane White is OK, first I did not like using Runnable but I could not find any alternatives.

Here another implementation I preferred more:

public class OptionalConsumer<T> {     private Optional<T> optional;      private OptionalConsumer(Optional<T> optional) {         this.optional = optional;     }      public static <T> OptionalConsumer<T> of(Optional<T> optional) {         return new OptionalConsumer<>(optional);     }      public OptionalConsumer<T> ifPresent(Consumer<T> c) {         optional.ifPresent(c);         return this;     }      public OptionalConsumer<T> ifNotPresent(Runnable r) {         if (!optional.isPresent()) {             r.run();         }         return this;     } } 

Then:

Optional<Any> o = Optional.of(...); OptionalConsumer.of(o).ifPresent(s -> System.out.println("isPresent " + s))                 .ifNotPresent(() -> System.out.println("! isPresent")); 

Update 1:

the above solution for the traditional way of development when you have the value and want to process it but what if I want to define the functionality and the execution will be then, check below enhancement;

public class OptionalConsumer<T> implements Consumer<Optional<T>> { private final Consumer<T> c; private final Runnable r;  public OptionalConsumer(Consumer<T> c, Runnable r) {     super();     this.c = c;     this.r = r; }  public static <T> OptionalConsumer<T> of(Consumer<T> c, Runnable r) {     return new OptionalConsumer(c, r); }  @Override public void accept(Optional<T> t) {     if (t.isPresent()) {         c.accept(t.get());     }     else {         r.run();     } } 

Then could be used as:

Consumer<Optional<Integer>> c = OptionalConsumer.of(     System.out::println,      () -> System.out.println("Not fit") );  IntStream.range(0, 100)     .boxed()     .map(i -> Optional.of(i)     .filter(j -> j % 2 == 0))     .forEach(c); 

In this new code you have 3 things:

1. can define the functionality before the existing of an object easy.
2. not creating object reference for each Optional, only one, you have so less memory than less GC.
3. it is implementing consumer for better usage with other components.

By the way, now its name is more descriptive it is actually Consumer<Optional<?>>