Java distinguishes between two categories of exceptions (checked & unchecked). Java enforces a catch or declared requirement for checked exceptions. An exception's type determines whether an exception is checked or unchecked. All exception types that are direct or indirect subclasses of class RuntimeException are unchecked exception. All classes that inherit from class Exception but not RuntimeException are considered to be checked exceptions. Classes that inherit from class Error are considered to be unchecked. Compiler checks each method call and deceleration to determine whether the method throws checked exception. If so the compiler ensures the exception is caught or is declared in a throws clause. To satisfy the declare part of the catch-or-declare requirement, the method that generates the exception must provide a throws clause containing the checked-exception. Exception classes are defined to be checked when they are considered important enough to catch or declare.

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。

这里有一个简单的规则可以帮助你做出决定。它与Java中如何使用接口有关。

以你的类为例，想象一下为它设计一个接口，该接口描述类的功能，但不描述底层实现(接口应该这样)。假设您可能以另一种方式实现该类。

查看接口的方法，并考虑它们可能抛出的异常:

如果方法可以抛出异常，而不管底层实现是什么(换句话说，它只描述功能)，那么它可能应该是接口中的受控异常。

如果异常是由底层实现引起的，那么它不应该出现在接口中。因此，它必须是类中的未检查异常(因为未检查异常不需要出现在接口签名中)，或者必须将其包装并作为接口方法的一部分的已检查异常重新抛出。

To decide if you should wrap and rethrow, you should again consider whether it makes sense for a user of the interface to have to handle the exception condition immediately, or the exception is so general that there is nothing you can do about it and it should propagate up the stack. Does the wrapped exception make sense when expressed as functionality of the new interface you are defining or is it just a carrier for a bag of possible error conditions that could also happen to other methods? If the former, it might still be a checked exception, otherwise it should be unchecked.

通常不应该计划“冒泡”异常(捕获并重新抛出)。异常要么应该由调用者处理(在这种情况下它被检查)，要么应该一直向上到高级处理程序(在这种情况下，如果它不被检查是最简单的)。

运行时异常: 运行时异常被称为未检查的异常。所有其他例外 是受控异常，并且它们不是派生自java.lang.RuntimeException。

检查异常: 必须在代码中的某个地方捕获受控异常。如果您调用 方法，该方法引发已检查异常，但您没有捕获该已检查异常 在某些地方，您的代码将无法编译。这就是为什么他们被称为检查 异常:编译器检查以确保它们被处理或声明。

Java API中的许多方法都会抛出检查过的异常，因此您将经常编写异常处理程序来处理由您没有编写的方法生成的异常。

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.

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。