上述异常是否被认为是受控异常? 没有 如果异常是RuntimeException，那么您正在处理的异常并不会使其成为Checked exception。 RuntimeException是未检查的异常吗? 是的

受控异常是java.lang.Exception的子类 未检查异常是java.lang.RuntimeException的子类

抛出已检查异常的调用需要包含在try{}块中，或者在方法调用方的更高级别中处理。在这种情况下，当前方法必须声明它抛出上述异常，以便调用者可以做出适当的安排来处理异常。

希望这能有所帮助。

问:我应该把确切的泡沫 异常或屏蔽它使用异常?

A:是的，这是一个非常好的问题，也是重要的设计考虑因素。Exception类是一个非常通用的异常类，可用于包装内部低级异常。您最好创建一个自定义异常，并将其封装在其中。但是，还有一个很大的问题——永远不要模糊潜在的根本原因。对于前任，不要做下面的事情

try {
     attemptLogin(userCredentials);
} catch (SQLException sqle) {
     throw new LoginFailureException("Cannot login!!"); //<-- Eat away original root cause, thus obscuring underlying problem.
}

你可以这样做:

try {
     attemptLogin(userCredentials);
} catch (SQLException sqle) {
     throw new LoginFailureException(sqle); //<-- Wrap original exception to pass on root cause upstairs!.
}

对生产支持团队来说，消除原始的根本原因，掩盖无法恢复的实际原因是一场噩梦，因为他们只能访问应用程序日志和错误消息。 虽然后者是一种更好的设计，但许多人不经常使用它，因为开发人员无法将底层消息传递给调用者。因此，请明确指出:无论是否封装在任何特定于应用程序的异常中，始终将实际异常传递回去。

在尝试捕获runtimeexception时

runtimeexception作为一般规则不应该被尝试捕获。它们通常是一个编程错误的信号，应该被置之不理。相反，程序员应该在调用一些可能导致RuntimeException的代码之前检查错误条件。为例:

try {
    setStatusMessage("Hello Mr. " + userObject.getName() + ", Welcome to my site!);
} catch (NullPointerException npe) {
   sendError("Sorry, your userObject was null. Please contact customer care.");
}

这是一种糟糕的编程实践。相反，null检查应该像-那样执行

if (userObject != null) {
    setStatusMessage("Hello Mr. " + userObject.getName() + ", Welome to my site!);
} else {
   sendError("Sorry, your userObject was null. Please contact customer care.");
}

但有时这种错误检查是昂贵的，例如数字格式，考虑这个-

try {
    String userAge = (String)request.getParameter("age");
    userObject.setAge(Integer.parseInt(strUserAge));
} catch (NumberFormatException npe) {
   sendError("Sorry, Age is supposed to be an Integer. Please try again.");
}

在这里，预调用错误检查不值得花费精力，因为它本质上意味着复制parseInt()方法中的所有字符串到整数转换代码——如果由开发人员实现，则很容易出错。因此，最好是取消try-catch。

因此NullPointerException和NumberFormatException都是runtimeexception，捕获一个NullPointerException应该替换为一个优雅的空检查，而我建议显式捕获NumberFormatException以避免可能引入容易出错的代码。

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.

如果有人想要另一个不喜欢受控异常的证明，请参阅流行JSON库的前几段:

虽然这是一个受控异常，但它很少是可恢复的。大多数调用方应该简单地将此异常包装在未检查的异常中并重新抛出:"

那么，如果我们应该“简单地包装它”，为什么世界上有人会让开发人员不断检查异常呢?哈哈

http://developer.android.com/reference/org/json/JSONException.html

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。

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?

For example let say you have some client-server application and client had made a request for some resource that couldn't be find out or for something else error some might have occurred at the server side while processing the user request then it is the duty of the server to tell the client why he couldn't get the thing he requested for,so to achieve that at server side, code is written to throw the exception using throw keyword instead of swallowing or handling it.if server handles it/swallow it, then there will be no chance of intimating to the client that what error had occurred.

注意:为了清楚地描述发生的错误类型，我们可以创建自己的Exception对象并将其抛出给客户端。

我只是想添加一些根本不使用受控异常的理由。这不是一个完整的答案，但我觉得它确实回答了你的部分问题，并补充了许多其他的答案。

Whenever checked exceptions are involved, there's a throws CheckedException somewhere in a method signature (CheckedException could be any checked exception). A signature does NOT throw an Exception, throwing Exceptions is an aspect of implementation. Interfaces, method signatures, parent classes, all these things should NOT depend on their implementations. The usage of checked Exceptions here (actually the fact that you have to declare the throws in the method signature) is binding your higher-level interfaces with your implementations of these interfaces.

让我给你们看一个例子。

让我们有一个像这样漂亮干净的界面

public interface IFoo {
    public void foo();
}

现在我们可以编写方法foo()的许多实现，就像这样

public class Foo implements IFoo {
    @Override
    public void foo() {
        System.out.println("I don't throw and exception");
    }
}

类Foo完全没问题。现在让我们第一次尝试Bar类

public class Bar implements IFoo {
    @Override
    public void foo() {
        //I'm using InterruptedExcepton because you probably heard about it somewhere. It's a checked exception. Any checked exception will work the same.
        throw new InterruptedException();
    }
}

这个类Bar不能编译。由于InterruptedException是一个已检查异常，您必须捕获它(在方法foo()中使用try-catch)或声明您正在抛出它(在方法签名中添加抛出InterruptedException)。因为我不想在这里捕获这个异常(我希望它向上传播，这样我就可以在其他地方正确地处理它)，让我们改变签名。

public class Bar implements IFoo {
    @Override
    public void foo() throws InterruptedException {
        throw new InterruptedException();
    }
}

这个类Bar也不能编译!Bar的方法foo()不会覆盖IFoo的方法foo()，因为它们的签名不同。我可以删除@Override注释，但我想编程接口IFoo像IFoo foo;然后再决定使用哪个实现，比如foo = new Bar();如果Bar的方法foo()没有覆盖IFoo的方法foo，当我执行foo.foo();它不会调用Bar的foo()实现。

To make Bar's public void foo() throws InterruptedException override IFoo's public void foo() I MUST add throws InterruptedException to IFoo's method signature. This, however, will cause problems with my Foo class, since it's foo() method's signature differs from IFoo's method signature. Furthermore, if I added throws InterruptedException to Foo's method foo() I would get another error stating that Foo's method foo() declares that it throws an InterruptedException yet it never throws an InterruptedException.

正如您所看到的(如果我在解释这些东西方面做得不错的话)，抛出InterruptedException这样的检查异常的事实迫使我将我的接口IFoo绑定到它的一个实现上，这反过来又会对IFoo的其他实现造成严重破坏!

这就是受控异常很糟糕的一个重要原因。在帽。

一种解决方案是捕获已检查异常，将其包装在未检查的异常中，然后抛出未检查的异常。