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

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。

其他回答

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”)。

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。

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。

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。

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。