约书亚·布洛赫在《有效的Java》中说过

为以下情况使用检查异常 可恢复条件和运行时 编程错误的例外 (第二版第58项)

看看我理解的对不对。

以下是我对受控异常的理解:

try{
    String userInput = //read in user input
    Long id = Long.parseLong(userInput);
}catch(NumberFormatException e){
    id = 0; //recover the situation by setting the id to 0
}

1. 上述异常是否被认为是受控异常?

2. RuntimeException是未检查的异常吗?

以下是我对未检查异常的理解:

try{
    File file = new File("my/file/path");
    FileInputStream fis = new FileInputStream(file);   
}catch(FileNotFoundException e){

//3. What should I do here?
    //Should I "throw new FileNotFoundException("File not found");"?
    //Should I log?
    //Or should I System.exit(0);?
}

4. 现在,上面的代码不能也是一个受控异常吗?我可以试着挽回这样的局面吗?我可以吗?(注:我的第三个问题在上面的陷阱里)

try{
    String filePath = //read in from user input file path
    File file = new File(filePath);
    FileInputStream fis = new FileInputStream(file);   
}catch(FileNotFoundException e){
    //Kindly prompt the user an error message
    //Somehow ask the user to re-enter the file path.
}

5. 人们为什么要这样做?

public void someMethod throws Exception{

}

为什么他们让异常冒出来?早点处理错误不是更好吗?为什么要冒出来?

6. 我是否应该冒泡出确切的异常或使用异常掩盖它?

以下是我的阅读资料

在Java中,什么时候应该创建检查异常,什么时候应该是运行时异常?

何时选择已检查异常和未检查异常


当前回答

许多人说检查异常(即你应该显式地捕获或重新抛出的异常)根本不应该使用。例如,它们在c#中被淘汰了,大多数语言都没有它们。因此,您总是可以抛出RuntimeException的子类(未检查的异常)

然而,我认为受控异常是有用的——当你想强迫API的用户思考如何处理异常情况(如果它是可恢复的)时,就使用它们。只是受控异常在Java平台中被过度使用了,这让人们讨厌它们。

以下是我对这个话题的扩展观点。

关于具体问题:

Is the NumberFormatException consider a checked exception? No. NumberFormatException is unchecked (= is subclass of RuntimeException). Why? I don't know. (but there should have been a method isValidInteger(..)) Is RuntimeException an unchecked exception? Yes, exactly. What should I do here? It depends on where this code is and what you want to happen. If it is in the UI layer - catch it and show a warning; if it's in the service layer - don't catch it at all - let it bubble. Just don't swallow the exception. If an exception occurs in most of the cases you should choose one of these: log it and return rethrow it (declare it to be thrown by the method) construct a new exception by passing the current one in constructor Now, couldn't the above code also be a checked exception? I can try to recover the situation like this? Can I? It could've been. But nothing stops you from catching the unchecked exception as well Why do people add class Exception in the throws clause? Most often because people are lazy to consider what to catch and what to rethrow. Throwing Exception is a bad practice and should be avoided.

遗憾的是,没有单一的规则可以让您决定何时捕获、何时重新抛出、何时使用已检查异常和何时使用未检查异常。我同意这会导致很多混乱和很多糟糕的代码。布洛赫阐述了总体原则(你引用了其中的一部分)。一般的原则是将异常重新抛出到可以处理它的层。

其他回答

某个异常是否为“受控异常”与是否捕获它或在捕获块中做了什么无关。它是异常类的属性。Exception的子类,除了RuntimeException及其子类,都是受控异常。

Java编译器迫使您要么捕获已检查的异常,要么在方法签名中声明它们。它本应提高程序的安全性,但大多数人的意见似乎是,它不值得它带来的设计问题。

为什么他们让异常冒泡 起来吗?不是处理错误越快 更好吗?为什么要冒出来?

因为这就是例外的意义所在。如果没有这种可能性,就不需要异常。它们使您能够在您选择的级别上处理错误,而不是强迫您在错误最初发生的低级方法中处理它们。

我认为受控异常对于使用外部库的开发人员是一个很好的提醒,在异常情况下,该库中的代码可能会出错。

简而言之,你的模块或上面的模块在运行时应该处理的异常被称为受控异常;其他是未检查的异常,它们是RuntimeException或Error。

在本视频中,它解释了Java中的受控异常和未受控异常: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue2pOqLaArw

所有异常都必须是检查异常。

Unchecked exceptions are unrestricted gotos. And unrestricted gotos are considered a bad thing. Unchecked exceptions break encapsulation. To process them correctly, all the functions in the call tree between the thrower and the catcher must be known to avoid bugs. Exceptions are errors in the function that throws them but not errors in the function that processes them. The purpose of exceptions is to give the program a second chance by deferring the decision of whether it's an error or not to another context. It's only in the other context can the correct decision be made.

所有这些都是受控异常。未检查的异常是RuntimeException的子类。问题不在于如何处理它们,而在于你的代码是否应该抛出它们。如果你不想让编译器告诉你你还没有处理一个异常,那么你可以使用一个未检查的(RuntimeException的子类)异常。这些应该保存在你无法恢复的情况下,比如内存不足等。