我会做一些一般的事情:

public interface Lambda {

    @FunctionalInterface
    public interface CheckedFunction<T> {

        T get() throws Exception;
    }

    public static <T> T handle(CheckedFunction<T> supplier) {
        try {
            return supplier.get();
        } catch (Exception exception) {
            throw new RuntimeException(exception);

        }
    }
}

用法:

 Lambda.handle(() -> method());

这并不是Java 8所特有的。你正在尝试编译一些等价的东西:

interface I {
    void m();
}
class C implements I {
    public void m() throws Exception {} //can't compile
}

这里已经贴出了很多很棒的回复。只是试图用不同的角度来解决问题。这只是我的两毛钱，如果我哪里说错了，请指正。

在FunctionalInterface中抛出子句不是一个好主意

我认为强制抛出IOException可能不是一个好主意，原因如下

This looks to me like an anti-pattern to Stream/Lambda. The whole idea is that the caller will decide what code to provide and how to handle the exception. In many scenarios, the IOException might not be applicable for the client. For example, if the client is getting value from cache/memory instead of performing actual I/O. Also, the exceptions handling in streams becomes really hideous. For example, here is my code will look like if I use your API acceptMyMethod(s -> { try { Integer i = doSomeOperation(s); return i; } catch (IOException e) { // try catch block because of throws clause // in functional method, even though doSomeOperation // might not be throwing any exception at all. e.printStackTrace(); } return null; }); Ugly isn't it? Moreover, as I mentioned in my first point, that the doSomeOperation method may or may not be throwing IOException (depending on the implementation of the client/caller), but because of the throws clause in your FunctionalInterface method, I always have to write the try-catch.

如果我知道这个API抛出IOException怎么办

Then probably we are confusing FunctionalInterface with typical Interfaces. If you know this API will throw IOException, then most probably you also know some default/abstract behavior as well. I think you should define an interface and deploy your library (with default/abstract implementation) as follows public interface MyAmazingAPI { Integer myMethod(String s) throws IOException; } But, the try-catch problem still exists for the client. If I use your API in stream, I still need to handle IOException in hideous try-catch block. Provide a default stream-friendly API as follows public interface MyAmazingAPI { Integer myMethod(String s) throws IOException; default Optional<Integer> myMethod(String s, Consumer<? super Exception> exceptionConsumer) { try { return Optional.ofNullable(this.myMethod(s)); } catch (Exception e) { if (exceptionConsumer != null) { exceptionConsumer.accept(e); } else { e.printStackTrace(); } } return Optional.empty(); } } The default method takes the consumer object as argument, which will be responsible to handle the exception. Now, from client's point of view, the code will look like this strStream.map(str -> amazingAPIs.myMethod(str, Exception::printStackTrace)) .filter(Optional::isPresent) .map(Optional::get).collect(toList()); Nice right? Of course, logger or other handling logic could be used instead of Exception::printStackTrace. You can also expose a method similar to https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/CompletableFuture.html#exceptionally-java.util.function.Function- . Meaning that you can expose another method, which will contain the exception from previous method call. The disadvantage is that you are now making your APIs stateful, which means that you need to handle thread-safety and which will be eventually become a performance hit. Just an option to consider though.

Sneaky throw成语允许绕过Lambda表达式的CheckedException。将CheckedException包装在RuntimeException中不利于严格的错误处理。

它可以用作Java集合中使用的Consumer函数。

下面是jib答案的一个简单改进版本。

import static Throwing.rethrow;

@Test
public void testRethrow() {
    thrown.expect(IOException.class);
    thrown.expectMessage("i=3");

    Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3).forEach(rethrow(e -> {
        int i = e.intValue();
        if (i == 3) {
            throw new IOException("i=" + i);
        }
    }));
}

这只是在重新抛出中包装lambda。它使CheckedException重新抛出在lambda中抛出的任何异常。

public final class Throwing {
    private Throwing() {}

    @Nonnull
    public static <T> Consumer<T> rethrow(@Nonnull final ThrowingConsumer<T> consumer) {
        return consumer;
    }

    /**
     * The compiler sees the signature with the throws T inferred to a RuntimeException type, so it
     * allows the unchecked exception to propagate.
     * 
     * http://www.baeldung.com/java-sneaky-throws
     */
    @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
    @Nonnull
    public static <E extends Throwable> void sneakyThrow(@Nonnull Throwable ex) throws E {
        throw (E) ex;
    }

}

在这里找到完整的代码和单元测试。

这个问题也一直困扰着我;这就是我创建这个项目的原因。

用它你可以做:

final ThrowingFunction<String, Integer> f = yourMethodReferenceHere;

JDK总共定义了39个接口，它们都有类似的抛出功能;这些都是流中使用的@ functionalinterface(基本流，还有IntStream, LongStream和DoubleStream)。

当它们中的每一个都扩展了它们的非抛出对应对象时，你也可以直接在lambdas中使用它们:

myStringStream.map(f) // <-- works

默认行为是，当您抛出lambda抛出一个检查异常时，抛出一个ThrownByLambdaException，并将检查异常作为原因。因此，您可以捕捉到它并得到原因。

其他特性也可用。

我所做的是允许用户在异常情况下给出他实际想要的值。 我有一个像这样的东西

public static <T, R> Function<? super T, ? extends R> defaultIfThrows(FunctionThatThrows<? super T, ? extends R> delegate, R defaultValue) {
    return x -> {
        try {
            return delegate.apply(x);
        } catch (Throwable throwable) {
            return defaultValue;
        }
    };
}

@FunctionalInterface
public interface FunctionThatThrows<T, R> {
    R apply(T t) throws Throwable;
}

这个可以被称为:

defaultIfThrows(child -> child.getID(), null)