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
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.
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.
我认为当声明应用程序异常时,它应该是未检查的异常,即RuntimeException的子类。 原因是它不会用try-catch和方法上的抛出声明使应用程序代码混乱。如果你的应用程序使用Java Api,抛出检查异常,无论如何都需要处理。对于其他情况,应用程序可以抛出未经检查的异常。如果应用程序调用方仍然需要处理未检查的异常,则可以这样做。
我们必须根据是否是程序员错误来区分这两种类型的异常。
If an error is a programmer error, it must be an Unchecked Exception. For example: SQLException/IOException/NullPointerException. These exceptions are programming errors. They should be handled by programmer. While in JDBC API, SQLException is Checked Exception, In Spring JDBCTemplate it is an Unchecked Exception.Programmer doesn't worry about SqlException, when use Spring. If an error is not a programmer error and the reason is coming from external, it must be a Checked Exception. For example: if the file is deleted or file permission is changed by someone else, It should be recovered.
FileNotFoundException是理解细微差别的好例子。在找不到文件的情况下抛出FileNotFoundException。这种例外有两个原因。如果文件路径是由开发人员定义的或通过GUI从最终用户获取的,那么它应该是一个未检查的异常。如果文件被其他人删除,它应该是一个Checked Exception。
检查异常可以用两种方式处理。它们使用try-catch或传播异常。在异常传播的情况下,由于异常处理,调用堆栈中的所有方法都将紧密耦合。这就是为什么我们必须小心地使用已检查异常。
如果您开发了一个分层的企业系统,您必须选择大多数未检查的异常来抛出,但不要忘记在您什么都做不了的情况下使用已检查的异常。
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。
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。