异常是一种代价高昂的效果，例如，如果您有一个用户提供了无效的密码，那么通常更好的方法是返回一个失败标志，或其他一些无效的指示。

这是由于异常处理的方式，真正的错误输入和唯一的关键停止项应该是异常，而不是失败的登录信息。

因为它们是正常发生的事情。异常不是控制流机制。用户经常会输入错误的密码，这不是特例。异常应该是一个真正罕见的事情，UserHasDiedAtKeyboard类型的情况。

如果用户名无效或密码不正确，这不是一个例外。这些都是在正常操作流程中应该预料到的事情。异常不属于正常程序操作的一部分，而且相当罕见。

我不喜欢使用异常，因为仅仅通过查看调用就无法判断一个方法是否引发了异常。这就是为什么只有当你不能以一种体面的方式处理这种情况时才应该使用异常(比如“内存不足”或“电脑着火了”)。

我认为只有在无法摆脱当前状态时才应该抛出异常。例如，如果您正在分配内存，但没有任何内存可以分配。在您提到的情况下，您可以清楚地从这些状态中恢复，并相应地将错误代码返回给调用者。

You will see plenty of advice, including in answers to this question, that you should throw exceptions only in "exceptional" circumstances. That seems superficially reasonable, but is flawed advice, because it replaces one question ("when should I throw an exception") with another subjective question ("what is exceptional"). Instead, follow the advice of Herb Sutter (for C++, available in the Dr Dobbs article When and How to Use Exceptions, and also in his book with Andrei Alexandrescu, C++ Coding Standards): throw an exception if, and only if

没有满足先决条件(通常会出现以下情况之一 不可能的)或 替代方案将无法满足后置条件或 替代方案将无法保持不变式。

为什么这样更好呢?它不是用几个关于前置条件，后置条件和不变量的问题代替了这个问题吗?这是更好的几个相关的原因。

Preconditions, postconditions and invariants are design characteristics of our program (its internal API), whereas the decision to throw is an implementation detail. It forces us to bear in mind that we must consider the design and its implementation separately, and our job while implementing a method is to produce something that satisfies the design constraints. It forces us to think in terms of preconditions, postconditions and invariants, which are the only assumptions that callers of our method should make, and are expressed precisely, enabling loose coupling between the components of our program. That loose coupling then allows us to refactor the implementation, if necessary. The post-conditions and invariants are testable; it results in code that can be easily unit tested, because the post-conditions are predicates our unit-test code can check (assert). Thinking in terms of post-conditions naturally produces a design that has success as a post-condition, which is the natural style for using exceptions. The normal ("happy") execution path of your program is laid out linearly, with all the error handling code moved to the catch clauses.

一个经验法则是在您通常无法预测的情况下使用异常。例如数据库连接、磁盘上丢失的文件等。对于您可以预测的场景，例如用户试图使用错误的密码登录，您应该使用返回布尔值的函数，并知道如何优雅地处理这种情况。您不希望仅仅因为有人输入了密码错误而抛出异常，从而突然结束执行。

异常类就像“正常”类。当一个新类“是”一个不同类型的对象，具有不同的字段和不同的操作时，您可以创建一个新类。

As a rule of thumb, you should try balance between the number of exceptions and the granularity of the exceptions. If your method throws more than 4-5 different exceptions, you can probably merge some of them into more "general" exceptions, (e.g. in your case "AuthenticationFailedException"), and using the exception message to detail what went wrong. Unless your code handles each of them differently, you needn't creates many exception classes. And if it does, may you should just return an enum with the error that occured. It's a bit cleaner this way.

避免抛出异常的主要原因是抛出异常涉及大量开销。

下面这篇文章指出的一件事是，例外是针对异常条件和错误的。

错误的用户名不一定是程序错误，而是用户错误……

下面是关于。net中的异常的一个不错的起点: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms229030 (VS.80) . aspx

一般来说，你想要为应用程序中可能发生的任何异常抛出一个"异常"

在您的示例中，这两个异常看起来都是通过密码/用户名验证调用的。在这种情况下，有人会输入错误的用户名/密码并不是什么例外。

它们是UML主要流程的“例外”，但在处理过程中是更多的“分支”。

如果您试图访问您的passwd文件或数据库，但无法访问，这将是一个异常情况，并需要抛出异常。

首先，如果API的用户对特定的、细粒度的故障不感兴趣，那么为他们设置特定的异常就没有任何价值。

由于通常不可能知道什么可能对用户有用，一个更好的方法是有特定的异常，但确保它们继承自一个公共类(例如，std::exception或其在c++中的派生类)。这允许您的客户端捕获特定的异常(如果他们愿意的话)，或者捕获更一般的异常(如果他们不关心的话)。

If it's code running inside a loop that will likely cause an exception over and over again, then throwing exceptions is not a good thing, because they are pretty slow for large N. But there is nothing wrong with throwing custom exceptions if the performance is not an issue. Just make sure that you have a base exception that they all inherite, called BaseException or something like that. BaseException inherits System.Exception, but all of your exceptions inherit BaseException. You can even have a tree of Exception types to group similar types, but this may or may not be overkill.

因此，简短的回答是，如果它不会导致显著的性能损失(除非抛出大量异常，否则不应该如此)，那么就继续执行。

You may use a little bit generic exceptions for that conditions. For e.g. ArgumentException is meant to be used when anything goes wrong with the parameters to a method (with the exception of ArgumentNullException). Generally you would not need exceptions like LessThanZeroException, NotPrimeNumberException etc. Think of the user of your method. The number of the conditions that she will want to handle specifically is equal to the number of the type of the exceptions that your method needs to throw. This way, you can determine how detailed exceptions you will have.

顺便说一下，总是尝试为库的用户提供一些避免异常的方法。TryParse就是一个很好的例子，它的存在使你不必使用int。解析并捕获异常。在您的情况下，您可能希望提供一些方法来检查用户名是否有效或密码是否正确，这样您的用户(或您)就不必进行大量异常处理。这将有望产生更易于阅读的代码和更好的性能。

抛出异常会导致堆栈unwind，这对性能有一定影响(承认，现代托管环境在这方面有所改进)。仍然在嵌套的情况下反复抛出和捕获异常是一个坏主意。

可能比这更重要的是，例外是针对特殊情况的。它们不应该用于普通的控制流，因为这会损害代码的可读性。

最终，决定取决于是使用异常处理更有助于处理此类应用程序级错误，还是通过您自己的机制(如返回状态代码)更有帮助。我不认为哪个更好有一个严格的规则，但我会考虑:

Who's calling your code? Is this a public API of some sort or an internal library? What language are you using? If it's Java, for example, then throwing a (checked) exception puts an explicit burden on your caller to handle this error condition in some way, as opposed to a return status which could be ignored. That could be good or bad. How are other error conditions in the same application handled? Callers won't want to deal with a module that handles errors in an idiosyncratic way unlike anything else in the system. How many things can go wrong with the routine in question, and how would they be handled differently? Consider the difference between a series of catch blocks that handle different errors and a switch on an error code. Do you have structured information about the error you need to return? Throwing an exception gives you a better place to put this information than just returning a status.

我个人的指导方针是:当发现当前代码块的基本假设为假时抛出异常。

例1:假设我有一个函数，它应该检查任意类，如果该类继承自List<>，则返回true。这个函数问一个问题:“这个对象是List的后代吗?”这个函数永远不会抛出异常，因为它的操作中没有灰色地带——每个单独的类要么继承了List<>，要么继承了List<>，所以答案总是“是”或“否”。

Example 2: say I have another function which examines a List<> and returns true if its length is more than 50, and false if the length is less. This function asks the question, "Does this list have more than 50 items?" But this question makes an assumption - it assumes that the object it is given is a list. If I hand it a NULL, then that assumption is false. In that case, if the function returns either true or false, then it is breaking its own rules. The function cannot return anything and claim that it answered the question correctly. So it doesn't return - it throws an exception.

这与“负载问题”逻辑谬误相当。每个函数都问一个问题。如果给出的输入使该问题成为谬误，则抛出异常。对于返回void的函数，这条线很难画出来，但底线是:如果函数对其输入的假设违反了，它应该抛出异常，而不是正常返回。

这个等式的另一方面是:如果你发现你的函数经常抛出异常，那么你可能需要改进它们的假设。

其他人建议不应该使用异常，因为在正常流程中，如果用户输入错误，就会出现错误的登录。我不同意，我不明白其中的道理。与打开文件相比。如果该文件不存在或由于某种原因不可用，则框架将抛出异常。使用上述逻辑是微软的一个错误。他们应该返回一个错误代码。解析、webrequest等也一样。

I don't consider a bad login part of a normal flow, it's exceptional. Normally the user types the correct password, and the file does exist. The exceptional cases are exceptional and it's perfectly fine to use exceptions for those. Complicating your code by propagating return values through n levels up the stack is a waste of energy and will result in messy code. Do the simplest thing that could possibly work. Don't prematurely optimize by using error codes, exceptional stuff by definition rarely happens, and exceptions don't cost anything unless you throw them.

我有三种情况。

Bad or missing input should not be an exception. Use both client side js and server side regex to detect, set attributes and forward back to the same page with messages. The AppException. This is usually an exception that you detect and throw with in your code. In other words these are ones you expect (the file does not exist). Log it, set the message, and forward back to the general error page. This page usually has a bit of info about what happened. The unexpected Exception. These are the ones you don't know about. Log it with details and forward them to a general error page.

希望这能有所帮助

异常用于异常行为、错误、失败等事件。功能行为、用户错误等应该由程序逻辑来处理。由于错误的帐户或密码是登录例程中逻辑流的一部分，因此它应该能够毫无例外地处理这些情况。

异常与返回错误代码参数应该是关于流控制的，而不是哲学(错误有多“异常”):

void f1() throws ExceptionType1, ExceptionType2 {}

void catchFunction() {
  try{
    while(someCondition){
      try{
        f1(); 
      }catch(ExceptionType2 e2){
        //do something, don't break the loop
      }
    }
  }catch(ExceptionType1 e1){
    //break the loop, do something else
  }

}

安全性与您的示例混为一谈:您不应该告诉攻击者用户名存在，但密码是错误的。这是你不需要分享的额外信息。只要说“用户名或密码不正确”。

我想说，对于什么时候使用异常并没有硬性规定。然而，使用或不使用它们有很好的理由:

使用异常的原因:

The code flow for the common case is clearer Can return complex error information as an object (although this can also be achieved using error "out" parameter passed by reference) Languages generally provide some facility for managing tidy cleanup in the event of the exception (try/finally in Java, using in C#, RAII in C++) In the event no exception is thrown, execution can sometimes be faster than checking return codes In Java, checked exceptions must be declared or caught (although this can be a reason against)

不使用异常的原因:

Sometimes it's overkill if the error handling is simple If exceptions are not documented or declared, they may be uncaught by calling code, which may be worse than if the the calling code just ignored a return code (application exit vs silent failure - which is worse may depend on the scenario) In C++, code that uses exceptions must be exception safe (even if you don't throw or catch them, but call a throwing function indirectly) In C++, it is hard to tell when a function might throw, therefore you must be paranoid about exception safety if you use them Throwing and catching exceptions is generally significantly more expensive compared to checking a return flag

一般来说，我更倾向于在Java中使用异常，而不是在c++或c#中，因为我认为异常，无论是否声明，都是函数正式接口的基本组成部分，因为更改异常保证可能会破坏调用代码。在Java IMO中使用它们的最大优势是，您知道调用者必须处理异常，这提高了正确行为的机会。

正因为如此，在任何语言中，我总是从一个公共类派生一层代码或API中的所有异常，这样调用的代码就总能保证捕获所有异常。另外，我认为在编写API或库时抛出特定于实现的异常类是不好的(即从较低的层包装异常，以便调用者接收到的异常在您的接口上下文中是可以理解的)。

注意，Java区分了一般异常和运行时异常，因为后者不需要声明。我只会使用运行时异常类，当您知道错误是由程序中的错误导致的。

我同意japollock的说法当你不确定手术的结果时就放弃接受。调用api、访问文件系统、数据库调用等。任何时候你都要超越编程语言的“界限”。

我想补充一点，请随意抛出一个标准异常。除非你打算做一些“不同”的事情(忽略，电子邮件，日志，显示twitter鲸鱼图片之类的东西)，否则不要费心自定义异常。

主要有两类异常:

1)系统异常(如数据库连接丢失)或 2)用户异常。(例如用户输入验证，“密码不正确”)

我发现创建自己的用户异常类很有帮助，当我想抛出一个用户错误时，我想要以不同的方式处理(即资源错误显示给用户)，然后我在我的主错误处理程序中所需要做的就是检查对象类型:

            If TypeName(ex) = "UserException" Then
               Display(ex.message)
            Else
               DisplayError("An unexpected error has occured, contact your help  desk")                   
               LogError(ex)
            End If

在决定异常是否合适时，需要考虑一些有用的事情:

what level of code you want to have run after the exception candidate occurs - that is, how many layers of the call stack should unwind. You generally want to handle an exception as close as possible to where it occurs. For username/password validation, you would normally handle failures in the same block of code, rather than letting an exception bubble up. So an exception is probably not appropriate. (OTOH, after three failed login attempts, control flow may shift elsewhere, and an exception may be appropriate here.) Is this event something you would want to see in an error log? Not every exception is written to an error log, but it's useful to ask whether this entry in an error log would be useful - i.e., you would try to do something about it, or would be the garbage you ignore.

The simple answer is, whenever an operation is impossible (because of either application OR because it would violate business logic). If a method is invoked and it impossible to do what the method was written to do, throw an Exception. A good example is that constructors always throw ArgumentExceptions if an instance cannot be created using the supplied parameters. Another example is InvalidOperationException, which is thrown when an operation cannot be performed because of the state of another member or members of the class.

在您的情况下，如果调用Login(用户名，密码)这样的方法，如果用户名无效，抛出UserNameNotValidException或PasswordNotCorrectException(密码不正确)确实是正确的。用户不能使用提供的参数登录(即，这是不可能的，因为它将违反身份验证)，因此抛出异常。尽管我可能从ArgumentException继承了两个异常。

话虽如此，如果因为登录失败可能很常见而不希望抛出异常，一种策略是创建一个方法，该方法返回表示不同失败的类型。这里有一个例子:

{ // class
    ...

    public LoginResult Login(string user, string password)
    {
        if (IsInvalidUser(user))
        {
            return new UserInvalidLoginResult(user);
        }
        else if (IsInvalidPassword(user, password))
        {
            return new PasswordInvalidLoginResult(user, password);
        }
        else
        {
            return new SuccessfulLoginResult();
        }
    }

    ...
}

public abstract class LoginResult
{
    public readonly string Message;

    protected LoginResult(string message)
    {
        this.Message = message;
    }
}

public class SuccessfulLoginResult : LoginResult
{
    public SucccessfulLogin(string user)
        : base(string.Format("Login for user '{0}' was successful.", user))
    { }
}

public class UserInvalidLoginResult : LoginResult
{
    public UserInvalidLoginResult(string user)
        : base(string.Format("The username '{0}' is invalid.", user))
    { }
}

public class PasswordInvalidLoginResult : LoginResult
{
    public PasswordInvalidLoginResult(string password, string user)
        : base(string.Format("The password '{0}' for username '{0}' is invalid.", password, user))
    { }
}

Most developers are taught to avoid Exceptions because of the overhead caused by throwing them. It's great to be resource-conscious, but usually not at the expense of your application design. That is probably the reason you were told not to throw your two Exceptions. Whether to use Exceptions or not usually boils down to how frequently the Exception will occur. If it's a fairly common or an fairly expectable result, this is when most developers will avoid Exceptions and instead create another method to indicate failure, because of the supposed consumption of resources.

下面是一个使用Try()模式避免在类似刚刚描述的场景中使用exception的例子:

public class ValidatedLogin
{
    public readonly string User;
    public readonly string Password;

    public ValidatedLogin(string user, string password)
    {
        if (IsInvalidUser(user))
        {
            throw new UserInvalidException(user);
        }
        else if (IsInvalidPassword(user, password))
        {
            throw new PasswordInvalidException(password);
        }

        this.User = user;
        this.Password = password;
    }

    public static bool TryCreate(string user, string password, out ValidatedLogin validatedLogin)
    {
        if (IsInvalidUser(user) || 
            IsInvalidPassword(user, password))
        {
            return false;
        }

        validatedLogin = new ValidatedLogin(user, password);

        return true;
    }
}

我想说，基本上每一个原教旨主义都会导致地狱。

您当然不希望以异常驱动流结束，但是完全避免异常也是一个坏主意。你必须在两种方法之间找到平衡。我不会为每种异常情况创建异常类型。这是没有成效的。

我通常更喜欢创建两种基本类型的异常，它们在整个系统中使用:LogicalException和TechnicalException。如果需要，可以通过子类型进一步区分这些类型，但通常不是没有必要。

技术异常指的是真正意想不到的异常，比如数据库服务器宕机，到web服务的连接抛出IOException等等。

另一方面，逻辑异常用于将不太严重的错误情况传播到上层(通常是一些验证结果)。

请注意，即使是逻辑异常也不是为了定期使用来控制程序流，而是为了突出显示流何时应该真正结束的情况。在Java中使用时，这两种异常类型都是RuntimeException子类，错误处理是高度面向方面的。

因此，在登录示例中，创建类似AuthenticationException的东西并通过枚举值(如UsernameNotExisting、PasswordMismatch等)来区分具体情况可能是明智的。这样就不会产生巨大的异常层次结构，并且可以将捕获块保持在可维护的级别。您还可以轻松地使用一些通用的异常处理机制，因为您已经对异常进行了分类，并且非常清楚要向用户传播什么以及如何传播。

我们的典型用法是，当用户输入无效时，在Web服务调用期间抛出LogicalException。异常被编组到SOAPFault详细信息，然后在客户机上再次被解组到异常，这将导致在某个web页面输入字段上显示验证错误，因为异常已正确映射到该字段。

这当然不是唯一的情况:您不需要点击web服务来抛出异常。你可以在任何特殊情况下自由地这样做(比如在你需要快速失败的情况下)——这都取决于你的判断。

我的小指南很大程度上受到了“代码完成”这本伟大的书的影响:

使用异常来通知不应该被忽略的事情。 如果错误可以在本地处理，就不要使用异常 确保异常与例程的其余部分处于相同的抽象级别。 异常应该留给真正的异常。

我对异常的使用有哲学问题。基本上，您期待一个特定的场景发生，但不是明确地处理它，而是将问题推到“其他地方”处理。至于“其他地方”在哪里，谁也说不准。

To my mind, the fundamental question should be whether one would expect that the caller would want to continue normal program flow if a condition occurs. If you don't know, either have separate doSomething and trySomething methods, where the former returns an error and the latter does not, or have a routine that accepts a parameter to indicate whether an exception should be thrown if it fails). Consider a class to send commands to a remote system and report responses. Certain commands (e.g. restart) will cause the remote system to send a response but then be non-responsive for a certain length of time. It is thus useful to be able to send a "ping" command and find out whether the remote system responds in a reasonable length of time without having to throw an exception if it doesn't (the caller would probably expect that the first few "ping" attempts would fail, but one would eventually work). On the other hand, if one has a sequence of commands like:

  exchange_command("open tempfile");
  exchange_command("write tempfile data {whatever}");
  exchange_command("write tempfile data {whatever}");
  exchange_command("write tempfile data {whatever}");
  exchange_command("write tempfile data {whatever}");
  exchange_command("close tempfile");
  exchange_command("copy tempfile to realfile");

人们会希望任何操作的失败都能中止整个序列。虽然可以检查每个操作以确保操作成功，但如果命令失败，让exchange_command()例程抛出异常会更有帮助。

实际上，在上面的场景中，有一个参数来选择一些失败处理模式可能会有所帮助:从不抛出异常，仅为通信错误抛出异常，或者在命令没有返回“成功”指示的任何情况下抛出异常。

“PasswordNotCorrectException”不是一个使用异常的好例子。用户输入错误的密码是意料之中的，所以在我看来，这几乎不是个例外。您甚至可能从中恢复，显示一个漂亮的错误消息，因此这只是一个有效性检查。

未处理的异常将最终停止执行——这是好事。如果返回false、null或错误代码，则必须自己处理程序的状态。如果您忘记检查某个地方的条件，您的程序可能会继续使用错误的数据运行，并且您可能很难弄清楚发生了什么以及在哪里发生了什么。

当然，空的catch语句也可能导致同样的问题，但至少发现这些语句更容易，而且不需要理解逻辑。

所以根据经验:

在您不想要或无法从错误中恢复的地方使用它们。

for me Exception should be thrown when a required technical or business rule fails. for instance if a car entity is associated with array of 4 tires ... if one tire or more are null ... an exception should be Fired "NotEnoughTiresException" , cuz it can be caught at different level of the system and have a significant meaning through logging. besides if we just try to flow control the null and prevent the instanciation of the car . we might never never find the source of the problem , cuz the tire isn't supposed to be null in the first place .

抛出异常的经验法则非常简单。当你的代码进入UNRECOVERABLE INVALID状态时，你可以这样做。如果数据被泄露，或者您无法回溯到目前为止发生的处理，那么您必须终止它。你还能做什么呢?您的处理逻辑最终将在其他地方失败。如果你能以某种方式恢复，那么就这样做，不要抛出异常。

在你的特定情况下，如果你被迫做一些愚蠢的事情，比如接受提款，然后才检查用户/密码，你应该通过抛出一个异常来终止这个过程，通知发生了一些不好的事情，并防止进一步的损害。

以下是我的建议:

我不认为这总是一个抛出异常的好方法，因为它将花费更多的时间和内存来处理这样的异常。

在我看来，如果某些事情可以用“友好、礼貌”的方式处理(这意味着如果我们可以“通过使用if......或类似的东西来预测这样的错误)，我们应该避免使用“异常”，而只是返回一个像“false”这样的标志，用一个外部参数值告诉他/她详细的原因。

举个例子，我们可以这样创建一个类:

public class ValueReturnWithInfo<T>
{
   public T Value{get;private set;}
   public string errorMsg{get;private set;}
   public ValueReturnWithInfo(T value,string errmsg)
   {
      Value = value;
      errMsg = errmsg;
   }
}

我们可以使用这种“多值返回”类来代替错误，这似乎是处理异常问题的一种更好、更礼貌的方式。

但是，请注意，如果一些错误不能如此容易地用"if"......(例如FileIO异常)描述(这取决于您的编程经验)，则必须抛出异常。

我想说的是，如果发生了意想不到的行为，应该抛出异常。

比如试图更新或删除一个不存在的实体。它应该在异常可以处理并且有意义的地方被捕获。如果要以另一种方式继续工作，请在Api级别上添加日志记录或返回特定的结果。

如果您期望某些事情是这样的，那么您应该构建代码来检查并确保它是正确的。