我使用的规则是:永远不要使用未经检查的异常!(或者当你看不到任何方法的时候)

从使用您的库的开发人员或使用您的库/应用程序的最终用户的角度来看，遇到由于不应出现的异常而导致应用程序崩溃的情况真的很糟糕。指望包罗万象也不行。

通过这种方式，最终用户仍然可以看到错误消息，而不是应用程序完全消失。

来自Java学习者:

When an exception occurs, you have to either catch and handle the exception, or tell compiler that you can't handle it by declaring that your method throws that exception, then the code that uses your method will have to handle that exception (even it also may choose to declare that it throws the exception if it can't handle it). Compiler will check that we have done one of the two things (catch, or declare). So these are called Checked exceptions. But Errors, and Runtime Exceptions are not checked for by compiler (even though you can choose to catch, or declare, it is not required). So, these two are called Unchecked exceptions. Errors are used to represent those conditions which occur outside the application, such as crash of the system. Runtime exceptions are usually occur by fault in the application logic. You can't do anything in these situations. When runtime exception occur, you have to re-write your program code. So, these are not checked by compiler. These runtime exceptions will uncover in development, and testing period. Then we have to refactor our code to remove these errors.

以下是我的“最终经验法则”。 我使用:

方法代码中由于调用者导致的失败而出现的未检查的异常(这涉及一个显式和完整的文档) 检查异常失败由于被调用，我需要明确的任何人想要使用我的代码

与前面的答案相比，这是使用一种或另一种(或两种)例外的明确理由(人们可以同意或不同意)。

对于这两个异常，我将为我的应用程序创建自己的未检查和已检查的异常(这里提到过，这是一个很好的实践)，除了非常常见的未检查异常(如NullPointerException)

例如，下面这个特定函数的目标是创建(如果已经存在，则获取)一个对象， 意义:

the container of the object to make/get MUST exist (responsibility of the CALLER => unchecked exception, AND clear javadoc comment for this called function) the other parameters can not be null (choice of the coder to put that on the CALLER: the coder will not check for null parameter but the coder DOES DOCUMENT IT) the result CAN NOT BE NULL (responsibility and choice of the code of the callee, choice which will be of great interest for the caller => checked exception because every callers MUST take a decision if the object can not be created/found, and that decision must be enforced at the compilation time: they can not use this function without having to deal with this possibility, meaning with this checked exception).

例子:

/**
 * Build a folder. <br />
 * Folder located under a Parent Folder (either RootFolder or an existing Folder)
 * @param aFolderName name of folder
 * @param aPVob project vob containing folder (MUST NOT BE NULL)
 * @param aParent parent folder containing folder 
 *        (MUST NOT BE NULL, MUST BE IN THE SAME PVOB than aPvob)
 * @param aComment comment for folder (MUST NOT BE NULL)
 * @return a new folder or an existing one
 * @throws CCException if any problems occurs during folder creation
 * @throws AssertionFailedException if aParent is not in the same PVob
 * @throws NullPointerException if aPVob or aParent or aComment is null
 */
static public Folder makeOrGetFolder(final String aFoldername, final Folder aParent,
    final IPVob aPVob, final Comment aComment) throws CCException {
    Folder aFolderRes = null;
    if (aPVob.equals(aParent.getPVob() == false) { 
       // UNCHECKED EXCEPTION because the caller failed to live up
       // to the documented entry criteria for this function
       Assert.isLegal(false, "parent Folder must be in the same PVob than " + aPVob); }

    final String ctcmd = "mkfolder " + aComment.getCommentOption() + 
        " -in " + getPNameFromRepoObject(aParent) + " " + aPVob.getFullName(aFolderName);

    final Status st = getCleartool().executeCmd(ctcmd);

    if (st.status || StringUtils.strictContains(st.message,"already exists.")) {
        aFolderRes = Folder.getFolder(aFolderName, aPVob);
    }
    else {
        // CHECKED EXCEPTION because the callee failed to respect his contract
        throw new CCException.Error("Unable to make/get folder '" + aFolderName + "'");
    }
    return aFolderRes;
}

这里有一个非常简单的方法来解决你的“受控/未受控”困境。

规则1:将未检查异常视为代码执行前的可测试条件。 例如……

x.doSomething(); // the code throws a NullPointerException

其中x为空… 代码应该有以下内容

if (x==null)
{
    //do something below to make sure when x.doSomething() is executed, it won’t throw a NullPointerException.
    x = new X();
}
x.doSomething();

规则2:将检查异常视为代码执行时可能出现的不可测试条件。

Socket s = new Socket(“google.com”, 80);
InputStream in = s.getInputStream();
OutputStream out = s.getOutputStream();

在上面的例子中，URL (google.com)可能由于DNS服务器宕机而不可用。即使在DNS服务器工作并将“google.com”名称解析为IP地址的瞬间，如果连接到google.com，在任何时候，网络都可能瘫痪。你不能在读写流之前一直测试网络。

有时候，在我们知道是否存在问题之前，代码必须执行。通过强迫开发人员以这种方式编写代码，迫使他们通过检查异常来处理这些情况，我不得不向发明了这个概念的Java创造者致敬。

一般来说，几乎所有的Java api都遵循上述2条规则。如果尝试写入文件，磁盘可能会在完成写入之前被填满。可能是其他进程导致磁盘已满。根本没有办法测试这种情况。对于那些随时与硬件交互的人来说，使用硬件可能会失败，受控异常似乎是解决这个问题的一个优雅的解决方案。

这是一个灰色地带。在需要许多测试的情况下(一个带有大量&&和||的令人震惊的if语句)，抛出的异常将是一个CheckedException，因为要正确处理它太痛苦了——你不能简单地说这个问题是一个编程错误。如果测试少于10个(例如' If (x == null) ')，那么程序员错误应该是UncheckedException。

与语言口译员打交道时，事情变得有趣起来。根据上面的规则，语法错误应该被认为是一个检查或未检查的异常?我认为，如果语言的语法可以在执行之前进行测试，那么它应该是UncheckedException。如果无法测试该语言——类似于程序集代码在个人计算机上的运行方式，那么语法错误应该是一个已检查异常。

The 2 rules above will probably remove 90% of your concern over which to choose from. To summarize the rules, follow this pattern… 1) if the code to be execute can be tested before it’s executed for it to run correctly and if an Exception occurs — a.k.a. a programmer error, the Exception should be an UncheckedException (a subclass of RuntimeException). 2) if the code to be executed can not be tested before it’s executed for it to run correctly, the Exception should be a Checked Exception (a subclass of Exception).

当不太可能出现异常时，即使在捕捉到异常之后，我们也可以继续，并且我们不能做任何事情来避免该异常，那么我们可以使用受控异常。

当我们想做一些有意义的事情时，当一个特定的异常发生时，当这个异常是预期的，但不是确定的，那么我们可以使用受控异常。

当异常在不同的层中导航时，我们不需要在每一层都捕获它，在这种情况下，我们可以使用运行时异常或包装异常作为未检查的异常。

运行时异常是在异常最有可能发生的情况下使用的，没有办法进一步进行，并且没有任何东西可以恢复。在这种情况下，我们可以对这种异常采取预防措施。EX: NUllPointerException, ArrayOutofBoundsException。这些更有可能发生。在这种情况下，我们可以在编码时采取预防措施来避免这种异常。否则，我们将不得不在每个地方都写入try catch块。

更一般的例外情况可以设置为Unchecked，不太一般的例外情况将被检查。

我同意将未检查异常作为规则的偏好，特别是在设计API时。调用方总是可以选择捕获记录在案的、未检查的异常。你只是没有必要强迫打电话的人。

I find checked exceptions useful at the lower-level, as implementation detail. It often seems like a better flow of control mechanism than having to manage a specified error "return code". It can sometimes help see the impact of an idea for a low level code change too... declare a checked exception downstream and see who would need to adjust. This last point doesn't apply if there are a lot of generic: catch(Exception e) or throws Exception which is usually not too well-thought out anyway.