我为我的应用程序不期望的每个条件创建了异常。UserNameNotValidException, PasswordNotCorrectException等。
然而,我被告知我不应该为这些条件创造例外。在我的UML中,那些是主要流程的异常,那么为什么它不应该是异常呢?
是否有创建异常的指导或最佳实践?
我为我的应用程序不期望的每个条件创建了异常。UserNameNotValidException, PasswordNotCorrectException等。
然而,我被告知我不应该为这些条件创造例外。在我的UML中,那些是主要流程的异常,那么为什么它不应该是异常呢?
是否有创建异常的指导或最佳实践?
当前回答
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。
其他回答
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)。
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。
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.
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.