A DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST :
I would like a way to easily specify if-else behavior with an Optional.

Proposal 1:

void ifPresentOrElse(Consumer<? super T> consumer, Runnable action)

This is a simple addition to the API.

Proposal 2:

Optional<T> ifPresent(Consumer<? super T> consumer)
Optional<T> ifEmpty(Runnable action)

This would require ifPresent to be changed to return the Optional<T>, to be able to chain the methods. Which would also be the downside of this proposal, because you would be able to chain multiple times, writing contrived code like: someOptional.ifPresent(...).ifEmpty(...).ifPresent(...).ifEmpty(...)
(maybe this can be seen as a feature, but I think it's weird)

Personally, I prefer proposal 1.

JUSTIFICATION :
Currently, when you want the behavior as in the description, you need to write code like:

Optional<Item> nextItem = loadNextItem();
if(nextItem.isPresent()) {
    nextItem.get().process();
} else {
    latch.countDown();
}

or maybe:

Optional<Item> nextItem = loadNextItem();
nextItem.ifPresent(Item::process);
if(!nextItem.isPresent()) {
    latch.countDown();
}

but these examples have issues:
- both require you to declare a local variable to store the Optional
- both somehow duplicate logic: you have the isPresent() check, plus the get() (1st example) or ifPresent() (2nd example)
- they don't allow to use method references (except the if-part in the 2nd example)
- the 2nd example is a bit shorter, but the if-else logic isn't as clear as in the 1st example


EXPECTED VERSUS ACTUAL BEHAVIOR :
EXPECTED -
What I would like to write is:

using proposal 1:

loadNextItem().ifPresentOrElse(Item::process, latch::countDown);

using proposal 2:

loadNextItem().ifPresent(Item::process).ifEmpty(latch::countDown);

ACTUAL -
Actually there is no elegant way to do this.