对我来说，首选的解决方案是使用Lombok。这是一个很好的图书馆。

而不是:

Integer myMethod(String s) throws IOException

你会有

import lombok.SneakyThrows;

@SneakyThrows
Integer myMethod(String s)

异常仍然被抛出，但您不需要使用throws声明它。

我是一个小库的作者，它具有一些通用的魔法，可以在任何地方抛出任何Java异常，而不需要捕获它们，也不需要将它们包装到RuntimeException中。

用法: unchecked(() -> methodThrowingCheckedException())

public class UncheckedExceptions {

    /**
     * throws {@code exception} as unchecked exception, without wrapping exception.
     *
     * @return will never return anything, return type is set to {@code exception} only to be able to write <code>throw unchecked(exception)</code>
     * @throws T {@code exception} as unchecked exception
     */
    @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
    public static <T extends Throwable> T unchecked(Exception exception) throws T {
        throw (T) exception;
    }


    @FunctionalInterface
    public interface UncheckedFunction<R> {
        R call() throws Exception;
    }

    /**
     * Executes given function,
     * catches and rethrows checked exceptions as unchecked exceptions, without wrapping exception.
     *
     * @return result of function
     * @see #unchecked(Exception)
     */
    public static <R> R unchecked(UncheckedFunction<R> function) {
        try {
            return function.call();
        } catch (Exception e) {
            throw unchecked(e);
        }
    }


    @FunctionalInterface
    public interface UncheckedMethod {
        void call() throws Exception;
    }

    /**
     * Executes given method,
     * catches and rethrows checked exceptions as unchecked exceptions, without wrapping exception.
     *
     * @see #unchecked(Exception)
     */
    public static void unchecked(UncheckedMethod method) {
        try {
            method.call();
        } catch (Exception e) {
            throw unchecked(e);
        }
    }
}

来源:https://github.com/qoomon/unchecked-exceptions-java

我认为榴莲的错误课程结合了上面各种建议的许多优点。

将抛出函数包装到标准Java 8函数接口。 轻松指定各种处理错误的策略 在包装返回值的方法时，指定默认值和重新抛出RuntimeException之间有重要区别。 抛出Java 8的函数接口版本 类似于fge的答案 用于抛出特定异常的标准接口 这解决了Zoltán的问题

在你的项目中加入榴莲，你可以:

从jcenter或maven中心com.diffplug.durian:durian:3.3.0获取 或者只是复制粘贴两个小类到你的代码中:throws .java和Errors.java

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.

public void frankTest() {
    int pageId= -1;

    List<Book> users= null;
    try {
        //Does Not Compile:  Object page=DatabaseConnection.getSpringConnection().queryForObject("SELECT * FROM bookmark_page", (rw, n) -> new Portal(rw.getInt("id"), "", users.parallelStream().filter(uu -> uu.getVbid() == rw.getString("user_id")).findFirst().get(), rw.getString("name")));

        //Compiles:
        Object page= DatabaseConnection.getSpringConnection().queryForObject("SELECT * FROM bookmark_page", (rw, n) -> { 
            try {
                final Book bk= users.stream().filter(bp -> { 
                    String name= null;
                    try {
                        name = rw.getString("name");
                    } catch (Exception e) {
                        // TODO Auto-generated catch block
                        e.printStackTrace();
                    }
                    return bp.getTitle().equals(name); 
                }).limit(1).collect(Collectors.toList()).get(0);
            } catch (Exception e) {
                // TODO Auto-generated catch block
                e.printStackTrace();
            }
            return new Portal(rw.getInt("id"), "", users.get(0), rw.getString("name")); 
        } );
    } catch (Exception e) {
        // TODO Auto-generated catch block
        e.printStackTrace();
    }
}