[java] Java null check why use == instead of .equals()

In Java I am told that when doing a null check one should use == instead of .equals(). What are the reasons for this?

So I never get confused and avoid problems with this solution:

if(str.trim().length() <=0 ) {
   // is null !
}

In addition to the accepted answer (https://stackoverflow.com/a/4501084/6276704):

Since Java 1.7, if you want to compare two Objects which might be null, I recommend this function:

Objects.equals(onePossibleNull, twoPossibleNull)

java.util.Objects

This class consists of static utility methods for operating on objects. These utilities include null-safe or null-tolerant methods for computing the hash code of an object, returning a string for an object, and comparing two objects.

Since: 1.7

Because equal is a function derived from Object class, this function compares items of the class. if you use it with null it will return false cause cause class content is not null. In addition == compares reference to an object.

In Java 0 or null are simple types and not objects.

The method equals() is not built for simple types. Simple types can be matched with ==.

If you try calling equals on a null object reference, then you'll get a null pointer exception thrown.

if you invoke .equals() on null you will get NullPointerException

So it is always advisble to check nullity before invoking method where ever it applies

if(str!=null && str.equals("hi")){
 //str contains hi
}  

Also See

• difference-between-equals-and == in Java

According to sources it doesn't matter what to use for default method implementation:

public boolean equals(Object object) {
    return this == object;
}

But you can't be sure about equals in custom class.

If we use=> .equals method

if(obj.equals(null))  

// Which mean null.equals(null) when obj will be null.

When your obj will be null it will throw Null Point Exception.

so we should use ==

if(obj == null)

it will compare the references.

foo.equals(null)

What happens if foo is null?

You get a NullPointerException.

You could always do

if (str == null || str.equals(null))

This will first check the object reference and then check the object itself providing the reference isnt null.

If an Object variable is null, one cannot call an equals() method upon it, thus an object reference check of null is proper.

here is an example where str != null but str.equals(null) when using org.json

 JSONObject jsonObj = new JSONObject("{field :null}");
 Object field = jsonObj.get("field");
 System.out.println(field != null);        // => true
 System.out.println( field.equals(null)); //=> true
 System.out.println( field.getClass());  // => org.json.JSONObject$Null

EDIT: here is the org.json.JSONObject$Null class:

/**
 * JSONObject.NULL is equivalent to the value that JavaScript calls null,
 * whilst Java's null is equivalent to the value that JavaScript calls
 * undefined.
 */
private static final class Null {

    /**
     * A Null object is equal to the null value and to itself.
     *
     * @param object
     *            An object to test for nullness.
     * @return true if the object parameter is the JSONObject.NULL object or
     *         null.
     */
    @Override
    public boolean equals(Object object) {
        return object == null || object == this;
    }  
}

I have encountered this case last night.
I determine that simply that:

Don't exist equals() method for null
So, you can not invoke an inexistent method if you don't have
-->>> That is reason for why we use == to check null

Object.equals is null safe, however be aware that if two objects are null, object.equals will return true so be sure to check that the objects you are comparing aren't null (or hold null values) before using object.equals for comparison.

String firstname = null;
String lastname = null;

if(Objects.equals(firstname, lastname)){
    System.out.println("equal!");
} else {
    System.out.println("not equal!");
}

Example snippet above will return equal!

You code breaks Demeter's law. That's why it's better to refactor the design itself. As a workaround, you can use Optional

   obj = Optional.ofNullable(object1)
    .map(o -> o.getIdObject11())
    .map(o -> o.getIdObject111())
    .map(o -> o.getDescription())
    .orElse("")

above is to check to hierarchy of a object so simply use

Optional.ofNullable(object1) 

if you have only one object to check

Hope this helps !!!!