多年来,我一直无法得到以下问题的一个像样的答案:为什么一些开发人员如此反对受控异常?我有过无数次的对话,在博客上读过一些东西,读过Bruce Eckel说的话(我看到的第一个站出来反对他们的人)。

我目前正在编写一些新代码,并非常注意如何处理异常。我试图了解那些“我们不喜欢受控异常”的人的观点,但我仍然看不出来。

我的每一次谈话都以同样的问题结束。让我把它建立起来:

一般来说(从Java的设计方式来看),

Error is for things that should never be caught (VM has a peanut allergy and someone dropped a jar of peanuts on it) RuntimeException is for things that the programmer did wrong (programmer walked off the end of an array) Exception (except RuntimeException) is for things that are out of the programmer's control (disk fills up while writing to the file system, file handle limit for the process has been reached and you cannot open any more files) Throwable is simply the parent of all of the exception types.

我听到的一个常见的说法是,如果发生了异常,那么所有开发人员要做的就是退出程序。

我听到的另一个常见论点是受控异常使得重构代码更加困难。

对于“我要做的就是退出”的参数,我说即使你退出了,你也需要显示一个合理的错误消息。如果你只是在处理错误上押注,那么当程序在没有明确说明原因的情况下退出时,你的用户不会太高兴。

对于“它使重构变得困难”的人群来说,这表明没有选择适当的抽象级别。与其声明方法抛出IOException,不如将IOException转换为更适合当前情况的异常。

我对用catch(Exception)(或在某些情况下用catch(Throwable)包装Main没有问题,以确保程序可以优雅地退出-但我总是捕获我需要的特定异常。这样做至少可以显示适当的错误消息。

人们从来不会回答的问题是:

如果抛出RuntimeException 子类代替异常 子类,你怎么知道 你应该去抓?

如果答案是catch Exception,那么您也在以与系统异常相同的方式处理程序员错误。在我看来这是不对的。

如果你捕获Throwable,那么你是在以同样的方式处理系统异常和虚拟机错误(等等)。在我看来这是不对的。

如果答案是您只捕获您知道抛出的异常,那么您如何知道抛出了哪些异常呢?当程序员X抛出一个新的异常而忘记捕获它时会发生什么?这对我来说似乎很危险。

我认为显示堆栈跟踪的程序是错误的。不喜欢受控异常的人不会有这种感觉吗?

所以,如果你不喜欢受控异常,你能解释一下为什么不,并回答没有得到回答的问题吗?

我不是在寻求什么时候使用这两种模型的建议,我想知道的是为什么人们从RuntimeException扩展,因为他们不喜欢从Exception扩展,和/或为什么他们捕获一个异常然后重新抛出一个RuntimeException,而不是将抛出添加到他们的方法中。我想了解不喜欢受控异常的动机。


当前回答

《有效的Java异常》一文很好地解释了什么时候使用未检查的异常,什么时候使用已检查的异常。以下是那篇文章中的一些引语,以突出其要点:

应急预案: 一种期望的条件,要求方法提供可根据该方法的预期目的来表达的替代响应。方法的调用者期望这些类型的条件,并有一个策略来处理它们。 错: 一种计划外的情况,阻止方法实现其预期目的,如果不参考方法的内部实现,则无法描述该情况。

(SO不支持表格,所以你可能想从原始页面阅读以下内容…)

Contingency Is considered to be: A part of the design Is expected to happen: Regularly but rarely Who cares about it: The upstream code that invokes the method Examples: Alternative return modes Best Mapping: A checked exception Fault Is considered to be: A nasty surprise Is expected to happen: Never Who cares about it: The people who need to fix the problem Examples: Programming bugs, hardware malfunctions, configuration mistakes, missing files, unavailable servers Best Mapping: An unchecked exception

其他回答

我们已经看到了c#首席架构师的一些参考。

下面是Java人员关于何时使用受控异常的另一种观点。他承认了其他人提到的许多负面因素: 有效的异常

这并不是反对受控异常的纯概念,但是Java用于受控异常的类层次结构是一个畸形秀。我们总是简单地称这些东西为“异常”——这是正确的,因为语言规范也这样称呼它们——但是异常在类型系统中是如何命名和表示的呢?

By the class Exception one imagines? Well no, because Exceptions are exceptions, and likewise exceptions are Exceptions, except for those exceptions that are not Exceptions, because other exceptions are actually Errors, which are the other kind of exception, a kind of extra-exceptional exception that should never happen except when it does, and which you should never catch except sometimes you have to. Except that's not all because you can also define other exceptions that are neither Exceptions nor Errors but merely Throwable exceptions.

哪些是“已检查”异常?可抛出异常是受控异常,除非它们也是错误,是未检查的异常,然后是异常,也是可抛出异常,是受控异常的主要类型,除了有一个例外,那就是if它们也是runtimeexception,因为那是另一种未检查的异常。

What are RuntimeExceptions for? Well just like the name implies, they're exceptions, like all Exceptions, and they happen at run-time, like all exceptions actually, except that RuntimeExceptions are exceptional compared to other run-time Exceptions because they aren't supposed to happen except when you make some silly error, although RuntimeExceptions are never Errors, so they're for things that are exceptionally erroneous but which aren't actually Errors. Except for RuntimeErrorException, which really is a RuntimeException for Errors. But aren't all exceptions supposed to represent erroneous circumstances anyway? Yes, all of them. Except for ThreadDeath, an exceptionally unexceptional exception, as the documentation explains that it's a "normal occurrence" and that that's why they made it a type of Error.

Anyway, since we're dividing all exceptions down the middle into Errors (which are for exceptional execution exceptions, so unchecked) and Exceptions (which are for less exceptional execution errors, so checked except when they're not), we now need two different kinds of each of several exceptions. So we need IllegalAccessError and IllegalAccessException, and InstantiationError and InstantiationException, and NoSuchFieldError and NoSuchFieldException, and NoSuchMethodError and NoSuchMethodException, and ZipError and ZipException.

只不过,即使检查了异常,也总有(相当简单的)方法可以欺骗编译器,在不检查的情况下抛出异常。如果你这样做,你可能会得到一个不确定的throwableexception,除非在其他情况下,它可能抛出一个意外的dexception,或一个未知的异常(与未知的错误无关,只针对“严重的异常”),或一个ExecutionException,或一个InvocationTargetException,或一个ExceptionInInitializerError。

哦,我们一定不能忘记Java 8时髦的新UncheckedIOException,这是一个RuntimeException异常,设计用来通过包装由I/O错误(不会引起IOError异常,尽管也存在)引起的已检查的IOException异常来抛出异常检查的概念,这些异常异常难以处理,因此您需要它们不被检查。

由于Java !

受控异常的一个问题是,如果一个接口的一个实现使用了它,异常通常会附加到该接口的方法上。

受控异常的另一个问题是它们容易被滥用。java.sql就是一个完美的例子。连接的close()方法。它可以抛出一个SQLException,即使您已经显式地声明您已经完成了连接。close()可能传达了哪些您所关心的信息?

通常,当我关闭()一个连接*时,它看起来像这样:

try {
    conn.close();
} catch (SQLException ex) {
    // Do nothing
}

另外,不要让我开始各种解析方法和NumberFormatException... .NET的TryParse,它不抛出异常,使用起来要容易得多,以至于不得不回到Java(我工作的地方同时使用Java和c#)。

*作为额外的注释,PooledConnection的connection .close()甚至不关闭连接,但您仍然必须捕获SQLException,因为它是一个已检查异常。

Artima发表了一篇对。net架构师之一Anders Hejlsberg的采访,其中尖锐地讨论了反对受控异常的论点。品性差的人:

The throws clause, at least the way it's implemented in Java, doesn't necessarily force you to handle the exceptions, but if you don't handle them, it forces you to acknowledge precisely which exceptions might pass through. It requires you to either catch declared exceptions or put them in your own throws clause. To work around this requirement, people do ridiculous things. For example, they decorate every method with, "throws Exception." That just completely defeats the feature, and you just made the programmer write more gobbledy gunk. That doesn't help anybody.

我读了很多关于异常处理的书,即使(大多数时候)我不能真的说我对受控异常的存在感到高兴或悲伤,这是我的看法:在低级代码(IO,网络,OS等)中受控异常,在高级api /应用程序级别中未受控异常。

即使在它们之间没有那么容易划清界限,我发现在同一屋檐下集成几个api /库而不始终包装大量的检查异常是非常烦人/困难的,但另一方面,有时强制捕获一些异常并提供一个在当前上下文中更有意义的不同异常是有用/更好的。

The project I'm working on takes lots of libraries and integrates them under the same API, API which is completely based on unchecked exceptions.This frameworks provides a high-level API which in the beginning was full of checked exceptions and had only several unchecked exceptions(Initialization Exception, ConfigurationException, etc) and I must say was not very friendly. Most of the time you had to catch or re-throw exceptions which you don't know how to handle, or you don't even care(not to be confused with you should ignore exceptions), especially on the client side where a single click could throw 10 possible (checked) exceptions.

The current version(3rd one) uses only unchecked exceptions, and it has a global exception handler which is responsible to handle anything uncaught. The API provides a way to register exception handlers, which will decide if an exception is considered an error(most of the time this is the case) which means log & notify somebody, or it can mean something else - like this exception, AbortException, which means break the current execution thread and don't log any error 'cause it is desired not to. Of course, in order to work out all custom thread must handle the run() method with a try {...} catch(all).

公共无效运行(){

try {
     ... do something ...
} catch (Throwable throwable) {
     ApplicationContext.getExceptionService().handleException("Handle this exception", throwable);
}

}

如果您使用WorkerService来安排作业(Runnable, Callable, Worker),这是不必要的,它会为您处理一切。

当然,这只是我的个人观点,它可能不是正确的,但对我来说这是一个很好的方法。我将在发布项目后看看我认为对我有好处的东西,对其他人也有好处……:)