这个问题

我所看到的异常处理机制最糟糕的问题是它引入了大规模的代码复制!让我们诚实地说:在大多数项目中，在95%的时间里，开发人员真正需要做的就是以某种方式与用户沟通(在某些情况下，也需要与开发团队沟通，例如通过发送带有堆栈跟踪的电子邮件)。因此，通常在处理异常的每个地方都使用相同的代码行/块。

让我们假设我们在每个catch块中对某种类型的检查异常做简单的日志记录:

try{
   methodDeclaringCheckedException();
}catch(CheckedException e){
   logger.error(e);
}

如果这是一个常见的异常，那么在更大的代码库中甚至可能有数百个这样的try-catch块。现在让我们假设我们需要引入基于弹出对话框的异常处理，而不是控制台日志记录，或者开始额外向开发团队发送电子邮件。

等一下……我们真的要在代码中编辑这几百个位置吗?你明白我的意思:-)。

解决方案

为了解决这个问题，我们引入了异常处理程序的概念(我将进一步将其称为EH)来集中异常处理。对于每个需要处理异常的类，依赖注入框架都会注入一个异常处理程序实例。所以异常处理的典型模式现在看起来像这样:

try{
    methodDeclaringCheckedException();
}catch(CheckedException e){
    exceptionHandler.handleError(e);
}

现在要定制我们的异常处理，我们只需要更改一个地方的代码(EH代码)。

当然，对于更复杂的情况，我们可以实现eh的几个子类，并利用DI框架提供给我们的特性。通过改变我们的DI框架配置，我们可以轻松地在全局切换EH实现，或者为有特殊异常处理需求的类提供特定的EH实现(例如使用Guice @Named注释)。

这样我们就可以区分应用程序的开发版本和发布版本中的异常处理行为。开发——记录错误并停止应用程序，用更详细的信息刺激记录错误并让应用程序继续执行)。

最后一点

最后但并非最不重要的是，似乎可以通过将异常“向上传递”直到它们到达某个顶级异常处理类来获得同样的集中化。但这会导致代码和方法签名的混乱，并引入本线程中其他人提到的维护问题。

这并不是反对受控异常的纯概念，但是Java用于受控异常的类层次结构是一个畸形秀。我们总是简单地称这些东西为“异常”——这是正确的，因为语言规范也这样称呼它们——但是异常在类型系统中是如何命名和表示的呢?

By the class Exception one imagines? Well no, because Exceptions are exceptions, and likewise exceptions are Exceptions, except for those exceptions that are not Exceptions, because other exceptions are actually Errors, which are the other kind of exception, a kind of extra-exceptional exception that should never happen except when it does, and which you should never catch except sometimes you have to. Except that's not all because you can also define other exceptions that are neither Exceptions nor Errors but merely Throwable exceptions.

哪些是“已检查”异常?可抛出异常是受控异常，除非它们也是错误，是未检查的异常，然后是异常，也是可抛出异常，是受控异常的主要类型，除了有一个例外，那就是if它们也是runtimeexception，因为那是另一种未检查的异常。

What are RuntimeExceptions for? Well just like the name implies, they're exceptions, like all Exceptions, and they happen at run-time, like all exceptions actually, except that RuntimeExceptions are exceptional compared to other run-time Exceptions because they aren't supposed to happen except when you make some silly error, although RuntimeExceptions are never Errors, so they're for things that are exceptionally erroneous but which aren't actually Errors. Except for RuntimeErrorException, which really is a RuntimeException for Errors. But aren't all exceptions supposed to represent erroneous circumstances anyway? Yes, all of them. Except for ThreadDeath, an exceptionally unexceptional exception, as the documentation explains that it's a "normal occurrence" and that that's why they made it a type of Error.

Anyway, since we're dividing all exceptions down the middle into Errors (which are for exceptional execution exceptions, so unchecked) and Exceptions (which are for less exceptional execution errors, so checked except when they're not), we now need two different kinds of each of several exceptions. So we need IllegalAccessError and IllegalAccessException, and InstantiationError and InstantiationException, and NoSuchFieldError and NoSuchFieldException, and NoSuchMethodError and NoSuchMethodException, and ZipError and ZipException.

只不过，即使检查了异常，也总有(相当简单的)方法可以欺骗编译器，在不检查的情况下抛出异常。如果你这样做，你可能会得到一个不确定的throwableexception，除非在其他情况下，它可能抛出一个意外的dexception，或一个未知的异常(与未知的错误无关，只针对“严重的异常”)，或一个ExecutionException，或一个InvocationTargetException，或一个ExceptionInInitializerError。

哦，我们一定不能忘记Java 8时髦的新UncheckedIOException，这是一个RuntimeException异常，设计用来通过包装由I/O错误(不会引起IOError异常，尽管也存在)引起的已检查的IOException异常来抛出异常检查的概念，这些异常异常难以处理，因此您需要它们不被检查。

由于Java !

Ok... Checked exceptions are not ideal and have some caveat but they do serve a purpose. When creating an API there are specific cases of failures that are contractual of this API. When in the context of a strongly statically typed language such as Java if one does not use checked exceptions then one must rely on ad-hoc documentation and convention to convey the possibility of error. Doing so removes all benefit that the compiler can bring in handling error and you are left completely to the good will of programmers.

因此，一个人删除了Checked异常，比如在c#中所做的，那么如何以编程和结构的方式传达错误的可能性呢?如何通知客户端代码，这样那样的错误可能发生，必须处理?

在处理受控异常时，我听到了各种可怕的事情，它们被滥用了，这是肯定的，但未受控异常也是如此。我说，等几年，当api被堆叠在很多层的时候，你会乞求某种结构化的方法来传达失败。

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)。

Many have argued that not being able to load the file was almost always the end of the world for the process and it must die a horrible and painful death. So yeah.. sure ... ok.. you build an API for something and it loads file at some point... I as the user of said API can only respond... "Who the hell are you to decide when my program should crash !" Sure Given the choice where exceptions are gobbled up and leave no trace or the EletroFlabbingChunkFluxManifoldChuggingException with a stack trace deeper than the Marianna trench I would take the latter without a cinch of hesitation, but does this mean that it is the desirable way to deal with exception ? Can we not be somewhere in the middle, where the exception would be recast and wrapped each time it traversed into a new level of abstraction so that it actually means something ?

最后，我看到的大多数争论都是“我不想处理异常，许多人不想处理异常。受控异常迫使我去处理它们，因此我讨厌受控异常。”完全消除这种机制并将其降级到地狱的深渊是愚蠢的，缺乏判断力和远见。

如果我们消除了受控异常，我们也可以消除函数的返回类型，并且总是返回一个“anytype”变量……这样生活就简单多了，不是吗?

《有效的Java异常》一文很好地解释了什么时候使用未检查的异常，什么时候使用已检查的异常。以下是那篇文章中的一些引语，以突出其要点:

应急预案: 一种期望的条件，要求方法提供可根据该方法的预期目的来表达的替代响应。方法的调用者期望这些类型的条件，并有一个策略来处理它们。 错: 一种计划外的情况，阻止方法实现其预期目的，如果不参考方法的内部实现，则无法描述该情况。

(SO不支持表格，所以你可能想从原始页面阅读以下内容…)

Contingency Is considered to be: A part of the design Is expected to happen: Regularly but rarely Who cares about it: The upstream code that invokes the method Examples: Alternative return modes Best Mapping: A checked exception Fault Is considered to be: A nasty surprise Is expected to happen: Never Who cares about it: The people who need to fix the problem Examples: Programming bugs, hardware malfunctions, configuration mistakes, missing files, unavailable servers Best Mapping: An unchecked exception

好吧，这不是关于显示堆栈跟踪或无声崩溃。它是关于在层与层之间沟通错误的能力。

The problem with checked exceptions is they encourage people to swallow important details (namely, the exception class). If you choose not to swallow that detail, then you have to keep adding throws declarations across your whole app. This means 1) that a new exception type will affect lots of function signatures, and 2) you can miss a specific instance of the exception you actually -want- to catch (say you open a secondary file for a function that writes data to a file. The secondary file is optional, so you can ignore its errors, but because the signature throws IOException, it's easy to overlook this).

实际上，我现在在一个应用程序中处理这种情况。我们将异常重新打包为AppSpecificException。这使得签名非常干净，我们不必担心在签名中爆炸。

当然，现在我们需要在更高的级别上专门化错误处理，实现重试逻辑等等。所有的东西都是AppSpecificException，所以我们不能说“如果一个IOException被抛出，重试”或“如果ClassNotFound被抛出，完全中止”。我们没有可靠的方法来获得真正的异常，因为当它们在我们的代码和第三方代码之间传递时，东西会一次又一次地重新打包。

这就是为什么我非常喜欢python中的异常处理。你只能捕获你想要和/或能处理的东西。其他所有东西都冒出来了，就好像你自己重新扔了它一样(不管怎样你已经这么做了)。

我一次又一次地发现，在我提到的整个项目中，异常处理分为3类:

Catch and handle a specific exception. This is to implement retry logic, for example. Catch and rethrow other exceptions. All that happens here is usually logging, and its usually a trite message like "Unable to open $filename". These are errors you can't do anything about; only a higher levels knows enough to handle it. Catch everything and display an error message. This is usually at the very root of a dispatcher, and all it does it make sure it can communicate the error to the caller via a non-Exception mechanism (popup dialogue, marshaling an RPC Error object, etc).

尽管阅读了整页，我仍然找不到一个反对受控异常的合理论点。相反，大多数人都在谈论糟糕的API设计，无论是在一些Java类中还是在他们自己的类中。

这个功能唯一令人讨厌的地方就是原型设计。这可以通过向语言中添加一些机制来解决(例如，一些@supresscheckedexceptions注释)。但是对于常规编程，我认为受控异常是一件好事。