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。

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.

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。

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”)。

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.