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

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.

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)

使用Function包装器的另一种解决方案是返回结果包装器的实例，如果一切正常，则返回成功，或者返回失败。

一些代码来澄清事情:

public interface ThrowableFunction<A, B> {
    B apply(A a) throws Exception;
}

public abstract class Try<A> {

    public static boolean isSuccess(Try tryy) {
        return tryy instanceof Success;
    }

    public static <A, B> Function<A, Try<B>> tryOf(ThrowableFunction<A, B> function) {
        return a -> {
            try {
                B result = function.apply(a);
                return new Success<B>(result);
            } catch (Exception e) {
                return new Failure<>(e);
            }
        };
    }

    public abstract boolean isSuccess();

    public boolean isError() {
        return !isSuccess();
    }

    public abstract A getResult();

    public abstract Exception getError();
}

public class Success<A> extends Try<A> {

    private final A result;

    public Success(A result) {
        this.result = result;
    }

    @Override
    public boolean isSuccess() {
        return true;
    }

    @Override
    public A getResult() {
        return result;
    }

    @Override
    public Exception getError() {
        return new UnsupportedOperationException();
    }

    @Override
    public boolean equals(Object that) {
        if(!(that instanceof Success)) {
            return false;
        }
        return Objects.equal(result, ((Success) that).getResult());
    }
}

public class Failure<A> extends Try<A> {

    private final Exception exception;

    public Failure(Exception exception) {
        this.exception = exception;
    }

    @Override
    public boolean isSuccess() {
        return false;
    }

    @Override
    public A getResult() {
        throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
    }

    @Override
    public Exception getError() {
        return exception;
    }
}

一个简单的用例:

List<Try<Integer>> result = Lists.newArrayList(1, 2, 3).stream().
    map(Try.<Integer, Integer>tryOf(i -> someMethodThrowingAnException(i))).
    collect(Collectors.toList());

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。

你可以。

扩展@marcg的UtilException，并在必要的地方添加泛型<E extends Exception>:这样，编译器将强制您再次添加抛出子句，一切就像您可以在java 8的流上本机抛出受控异常一样。

public final class LambdaExceptionUtil {

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

    /**
     * .map(rethrowFunction(name -> Class.forName(name))) or .map(rethrowFunction(Class::forName))
     */
    public static <T, R, E extends Exception> Function<T, R> rethrowFunction(Function_WithExceptions<T, R, E> function) throws E  {
        return t -> {
            try {
                return function.apply(t);
            } catch (Exception exception) {
                throwActualException(exception);
                return null;
            }
        };
    }

    @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
    private static <E extends Exception> void throwActualException(Exception exception) throws E {
        throw (E) exception;
    }

}

public class LambdaExceptionUtilTest {

    @Test
    public void testFunction() throws MyTestException {
        List<Integer> sizes = Stream.of("ciao", "hello").<Integer>map(rethrowFunction(s -> transform(s))).collect(toList());
        assertEquals(2, sizes.size());
        assertEquals(4, sizes.get(0).intValue());
        assertEquals(5, sizes.get(1).intValue());
    }

    private Integer transform(String value) throws MyTestException {
        if(value==null) {
            throw new MyTestException();
        }
        return value.length();
    }

    private static class MyTestException extends Exception { }
}