在Java(或任何其他带有受控异常的语言)中,当创建您自己的异常类时,您如何决定它应该被检查还是未检查?
我的直觉是,在调用者可能能够以某种有效的方式恢复的情况下,将调用checked异常,而作为未检查的异常则更多地用于不可恢复的情况,但我对其他人的想法感兴趣。
在Java(或任何其他带有受控异常的语言)中,当创建您自己的异常类时,您如何决定它应该被检查还是未检查?
我的直觉是,在调用者可能能够以某种有效的方式恢复的情况下,将调用checked异常,而作为未检查的异常则更多地用于不可恢复的情况,但我对其他人的想法感兴趣。
当前回答
检查例外: 如果客户端可以从异常中恢复,并希望继续,请使用受控异常。
未经检查的异常: 如果客户端在异常发生后不能做任何事情,则引发未检查的异常。
示例:如果您希望在方法a()中执行算术操作,并且基于a()的输出,则必须执行另一个操作。如果方法A()的输出为空,而您在运行时并不期望它,那么您将抛出空指针异常,即运行时异常。
请参考这里
其他回答
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.
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。
在任何一个足够大的系统上,有很多层,检查异常是无用的,因为无论如何,您需要一个架构级策略来处理异常将如何处理(使用故障屏障)。
使用受控异常,您的错误处理策略是微管理的,在任何大型系统上都无法承受。
大多数情况下,您不知道错误是否“可恢复”,因为您不知道API的调用者位于哪一层。
假设我创建了一个StringToInt API,用于将整数的字符串表示形式转换为Int。如果API是用“foo”字符串调用的,我必须抛出检查异常吗?它可以恢复吗?我不知道,因为在他的层中,我的StringToInt API的调用者可能已经验证了输入,如果抛出这个异常,它要么是一个错误,要么是一个数据损坏,它是不可恢复的这一层。
在这种情况下,API的调用者不想捕获异常。他只想让异常“冒出来”。如果我选择了一个受控异常,这个调用者将有大量无用的catch块,只能人为地重新抛出异常。
大多数时候,什么是可恢复的取决于API的调用者,而不是API的编写者。API不应该使用受控异常,因为只有未受控异常才允许选择捕获或忽略异常。
以下是我在多年开发经验后的一些看法:
Checked exception. This is a part of business use case or call flow, this is a part of application logic we expect or not expect. For example connection rejected, condition is not satisfied etc. We need to handle it and show corresponding message to user with instructions what happened and what to do next (try again later etc). I usually call it post-processing exception or "user" exception. Unchecked exception. This is a part of programming exception, some mistake in software code programming (bug, defect) and reflects a way how programmers must use API as per documentation. If an external lib/framework doc says it expects to get data in some range and non null, because NPE or IllegalArgumentException will be thrown, programmer should expect it and use API correctly as per documentation. Otherwise the exception will be thrown. I usually call it pre-processing exception or "validation" exception.
目标受众。现在让我们来谈谈目标受众或设计例外的人群(根据我的观点):
检查异常。目标受众是用户/客户。 未经检查的异常。目标受众是开发人员。换句话说,未检查异常仅是为开发人员设计的。
通过应用程序开发生命周期阶段。
受控异常被设计为在整个生产生命周期中存在,作为应用程序处理异常情况的正常和预期机制。 未检查异常被设计为只存在于应用程序开发/测试生命周期期间,所有这些异常都应该在这段时间内得到修复,并且当应用程序已经在生产环境中运行时不应该抛出。
框架通常使用未检查异常(例如Spring)的原因是框架不能确定应用程序的业务逻辑,这取决于开发人员捕捉并设计自己的逻辑。
You can call it a checked or unchecked exception; however, both types of exception can be caught by the programmer, so the best answer is: write all of your exceptions as unchecked and document them. That way the developer who uses your API can choose whether he or she wants to catch that exception and do something. Checked exceptions are a complete waste of everyone's time and it makes your code a shocking nightmare to look at. Proper unit testing will then bring up any exceptions that you may have to catch and do something with.