你可以使用ET。ET是一个用于异常转换/转换的小型Java 8库。

对于ET，它看起来是这样的:

// Do this once
ExceptionTranslator et = ET.newConfiguration().done();

...

// if your method returns something
Function<String, Integer> f = (t) -> et.withReturningTranslation(() -> myMethod(t));

// if your method returns nothing
Consumer<String> c = (t) -> et.withTranslation(() -> myMethod(t));

ExceptionTranslator实例是线程安全的，可以由多个组件共享。如果你喜欢，你可以配置更具体的异常转换规则(例如FooCheckedException -> BarRuntimeException)。 如果没有其他可用的规则，被检查的异常将自动转换为RuntimeException。

(声明:我是ET的作者)

可以使用取消抛出包装器

Function<String, Integer> func1 = s -> Unthrow.wrap(() -> myMethod(s));

or

Function<String, Integer> func2 = s1 -> Unthrow.wrap((s2) -> myMethod(s2), s1);

如果您不介意使用第三方库，使用cyclops-react(我贡献的一个库)，您可以使用FluentFunctions API来编写

 Function<String, Integer> standardFn = FluentFunctions.ofChecked(this::myMethod);

ofChecked接受jOOλ CheckedFunction，并将软化后的引用返回到标准(未选中)JDK java.util.function.Function。

或者，你可以通过FluentFunctions api继续使用捕获的函数!

例如，要执行你的方法，最多重试5次，并记录你可以写入的状态

  FluentFunctions.ofChecked(this::myMethod)
                 .log(s->log.debug(s),e->log.error(e,e.getMessage())
                 .try(5,1000)
                 .apply("my param");

免责声明:我还没有使用过Java 8，只是阅读过它。

Function<String, Integer>不抛出IOException，所以你不能在其中放入任何抛出IOException的代码。如果你正在调用一个期望Function<String, Integer>的方法，那么你传递给该方法的lambda不能抛出IOException，句号。你可以这样写一个lambda(我认为这是lambda语法，不确定):

(String s) -> {
    try {
        return myMethod(s);
    } catch (IOException ex) {
        throw new RuntimeException(ex);
        // (Or do something else with it...)
    }
}

或者，如果你传递lambda的方法是你自己写的，你可以定义一个新的函数接口，并使用它作为参数类型，而不是Function<String, Integer>:

public interface FunctionThatThrowsIOException<I, O> {
    O apply(I input) throws IOException;
}

默认情况下，Java 8函数不允许抛出异常，正如在多个回答中所建议的那样，有许多方法来实现它，其中一种方法是:

@FunctionalInterface
public interface FunctionWithException<T, R, E extends Exception> {
    R apply(T t) throws E;
}

定义为:

private FunctionWithException<String, Integer, IOException> myMethod = (str) -> {
    if ("abc".equals(str)) {
        throw new IOException();
    }
  return 1;
};

并在调用者方法中添加抛出或尝试/捕获相同的异常。

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.