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)

有一种情况正好相反:永远不要使用受控异常。我不愿意在辩论中偏袒任何一方(双方都有很好的论据!)，但相当多的专家认为，事后看来，受控例外是一个错误的决定。

对于一些讨论，请查看维基百科网站的“已检查异常的价值可疑”。另一个早期广泛争论的例子是Rod Waldhoff的博客文章。

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;
}

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)

有一种情况正好相反:永远不要使用受控异常。我不愿意在辩论中偏袒任何一方(双方都有很好的论据!)，但相当多的专家认为，事后看来，受控例外是一个错误的决定。

对于一些讨论，请查看维基百科网站的“已检查异常的价值可疑”。另一个早期广泛争论的例子是Rod Waldhoff的博客文章。

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.

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.

当你想要向调用者提供信息时，受控异常对于可恢复的情况很有用(例如，权限不足，文件未找到等)。

未检查异常很少用于在运行时通知用户或程序员严重错误或意外情况。如果你编写的代码或库将被其他人使用，不要抛出这些异常，因为他们可能不希望你的软件抛出未经检查的异常，因为编译器不会强制捕获或声明这些异常。