异常类

当谈到异常时，我总是会参考Eric Lippert的恼人异常博客文章。他将例外情况分为以下几类:

Fatal - These exceptions are not your fault: you cannot prevent then, and you cannot sensibly handle them. For example, OutOfMemoryError or ThreadAbortException. Boneheaded - These exceptions are your fault: you should have prevented them, and they represent bugs in your code. For example, ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException, NullPointerException or any IllegalArgumentException. Vexing - These exceptions are not exceptional, not your fault, you cannot prevent them, but you'll have to deal with them. They are often the result of an unfortunate design decision, such as throwing NumberFormatException from Integer.parseInt instead of providing an Integer.tryParseInt method that returns a boolean false on parse failure. Exogenous - These exceptions are usually exceptional, not your fault, you cannot (reasonably) prevent them, but you must handle them. For example, FileNotFoundException.

API用户:

不能处理致命或愚蠢的异常。 应该处理令人烦恼的异常，但它们不应该出现在理想的API中。 必须处理外生异常。

已检查的异常

API用户必须处理特定的异常，这是调用方和被调用方之间的方法契约的一部分。契约指定了被调用方期望的参数的数量和类型，调用方期望的返回值类型，以及调用方期望处理的异常。

由于API中不应该存在令人烦恼的异常，因此只有这些外生异常必须作为方法契约的一部分进行检查。相对较少的异常是外生的，因此任何API都应该有相对较少的受控异常。

受控异常是必须处理的异常。处理异常就像吞下它一样简单。在那里!异常被处理。时期。如果开发者想这样处理，没问题。但他不能忽视这个例外，已经得到了警告。

API的问题

但是任何检查了令人烦恼和致命异常的API(例如JCL)都会给API用户带来不必要的压力。必须处理这样的异常，但是要么异常太常见，以至于一开始就不应该是异常，要么在处理它时什么都做不了。这导致Java开发人员讨厌受控异常。

此外，许多api没有适当的异常类层次结构，导致各种非外生异常原因都由单个受控异常类表示(例如IOException)。这也导致Java开发人员讨厌受控异常。

结论

外生异常指的是那些不是您的错、无法预防、并且应该处理的异常。这些构成了所有可能引发的异常的一个小子集。api应该只检查外生异常，所有其他异常都不检查。这将使API更好，给API用户带来更少的压力，从而减少捕获所有、吞咽或重新抛出未经检查的异常的需要。

所以不要讨厌Java和它的受控异常。相反，讨厌那些过度使用受控异常的api。

SNR

首先，检查异常降低了代码的“信噪比”。Anders Hejlsberg也谈到了命令式编程和声明式编程，这是一个类似的概念。不管怎样，考虑下面的代码片段:

在Java中从非UI线程更新UI:

try {  
    // Run the update code on the Swing thread  
    SwingUtilities.invokeAndWait(() -> {  
        try {
            // Update UI value from the file system data  
            FileUtility f = new FileUtility();  
            uiComponent.setValue(f.readSomething());
        } catch (IOException e) {  
            throw new UncheckedIOException(e);
        }
    });
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {  
    throw new IllegalStateException("Interrupted updating UI", ex);  
} catch (InvocationTargetException ex) {
    throw new IllegalStateException("Invocation target exception updating UI", ex);
}

在c#中从非UI线程更新UI:

private void UpdateValue()  
{  
   // Ensure the update happens on the UI thread  
   if (InvokeRequired)  
   {  
       Invoke(new MethodInvoker(UpdateValue));  
   }  
   else  
   {  
       // Update UI value from the file system data  
       FileUtility f = new FileUtility();  
       uiComponent.Value = f.ReadSomething();  
   }  
}  

这对我来说清楚多了。当您开始在Swing中做越来越多的UI工作时，检查异常开始变得非常烦人和无用。

监狱打破

即使要实现最基本的实现，比如Java的List接口，作为契约式设计工具的受控异常也行不通。考虑一个由数据库、文件系统或任何其他抛出受控异常的实现支持的列表。唯一可能的实现是捕获已检查异常，并将其作为未检查异常重新抛出:

@Override
public void clear()  
{  
   try  
   {  
       backingImplementation.clear();  
   }  
   catch (CheckedBackingImplException ex)  
   {  
       throw new IllegalStateException("Error clearing underlying list.", ex);  
   }  
}  

现在你要问所有这些代码的意义是什么?被检查的异常只是增加了噪音，异常被捕获但没有处理，契约式设计(就被检查的异常而言)已经失效。

结论

捕获异常与处理异常是不同的。 受控异常会给代码添加噪音。 没有它们，异常处理在c#中也能很好地工作。

我之前在博客上写过。

我读了很多关于异常处理的书，即使(大多数时候)我不能真的说我对受控异常的存在感到高兴或悲伤，这是我的看法:在低级代码(IO，网络，OS等)中受控异常，在高级api /应用程序级别中未受控异常。

即使在它们之间没有那么容易划清界限，我发现在同一屋檐下集成几个api /库而不始终包装大量的检查异常是非常烦人/困难的，但另一方面，有时强制捕获一些异常并提供一个在当前上下文中更有意义的不同异常是有用/更好的。

The project I'm working on takes lots of libraries and integrates them under the same API, API which is completely based on unchecked exceptions.This frameworks provides a high-level API which in the beginning was full of checked exceptions and had only several unchecked exceptions(Initialization Exception, ConfigurationException, etc) and I must say was not very friendly. Most of the time you had to catch or re-throw exceptions which you don't know how to handle, or you don't even care(not to be confused with you should ignore exceptions), especially on the client side where a single click could throw 10 possible (checked) exceptions.

The current version(3rd one) uses only unchecked exceptions, and it has a global exception handler which is responsible to handle anything uncaught. The API provides a way to register exception handlers, which will decide if an exception is considered an error(most of the time this is the case) which means log & notify somebody, or it can mean something else - like this exception, AbortException, which means break the current execution thread and don't log any error 'cause it is desired not to. Of course, in order to work out all custom thread must handle the run() method with a try {...} catch(all).

公共无效运行(){

try {
     ... do something ...
} catch (Throwable throwable) {
     ApplicationContext.getExceptionService().handleException("Handle this exception", throwable);
}

}

如果您使用WorkerService来安排作业(Runnable, Callable, Worker)，这是不必要的，它会为您处理一切。

当然，这只是我的个人观点，它可能不是正确的，但对我来说这是一个很好的方法。我将在发布项目后看看我认为对我有好处的东西，对其他人也有好处……：）

这篇文章是我读过的关于Java异常处理的最好的文章。

它更倾向于未检查的异常，而不是已检查的异常，但这个选择的解释非常透彻，并基于强有力的论据。

我不想在这里引用太多的文章内容(最好是整体阅读)，但它涵盖了这个线程中未检查异常倡导者的大部分论点。尤其是这个论点(似乎很受欢迎):

以异常在API层底部某处抛出的情况为例，因为没有人知道这个错误甚至可能发生，即使它是一种非常合理的错误类型，当调用代码抛出它时(例如FileNotFoundException而不是VogonsTrashingEarthExcept…)在这种情况下，我们是否处理它并不重要，因为没有任何东西可以处理它)。

作者“回应”:

It is absolutely incorrect to assume that all runtime exceptions should not be caught and allowed to propagate to the very "top" of the application. (...) For every exceptional condition that is required to be handled distinctly - by the system/business requirements - programmers must decide where to catch it and what to do once the condition is caught. This must be done strictly according to the actual needs of the application, not based on a compiler alert. All other errors must be allowed to freely propagate to the topmost handler where they would be logged and a graceful (perhaps, termination) action will be taken.

主要的思想或文章是:

当涉及到软件中的错误处理时，唯一安全且正确的假设是，存在的每个子程序或模块都可能发生故障!

因此，如果“没有人知道这个错误甚至可能发生”，那么这个项目就有问题了。像作者建议的那样，这种异常至少应该由最通用的异常处理程序来处理(例如，处理所有没有更特定的处理程序处理的异常)。

很遗憾，似乎没有多少人发现这篇伟大的文章:-(。我衷心建议每一个犹豫哪种方法更好的人花点时间阅读它。

下面是反对受控异常的一个论点(来自joelonsoftware.com):

The reasoning is that I consider exceptions to be no better than "goto's", considered harmful since the 1960s, in that they create an abrupt jump from one point of code to another. In fact they are significantly worse than goto's: They are invisible in the source code. Looking at a block of code, including functions which may or may not throw exceptions, there is no way to see which exceptions might be thrown and from where. This means that even careful code inspection doesn't reveal potential bugs. They create too many possible exit points for a function. To write correct code, you really have to think about every possible code path through your function. Every time you call a function that can raise an exception and don't catch it on the spot, you create opportunities for surprise bugs caused by functions that terminated abruptly, leaving data in an inconsistent state, or other code paths that you didn't think about.

正如人们已经说过的，Java字节码中不存在受控异常。它们只是一种编译器机制，与其他语法检查没有什么不同。我看到很多受控异常，就像我看到编译器抱怨一个冗余的条件:if(true) {a;b;}。这很有帮助，但我可能是故意这么做的，所以我忽略你的警告。

事实是，如果你强制执行受控异常，你将无法强迫每个程序员“做正确的事情”，而其他人现在都是附带损害，他们只是因为你制定的规则而讨厌你。

修复坏程序!不要试图修改语言来阻止它们!对于大多数人来说，“对异常做一些事情”实际上只是告诉用户它。我也可以告诉用户一个未检查的异常，所以不要让您的已检查异常类出现在我的API中。