In Java, is there an elegant way to detect if an exception occurred prior to running the finally block? When dealing with "close()" statements, it's common to need exception handling within the finally block. Ideally, we'd want to maintain both exceptions and propagate them up (as both of them may contain useful information). The only way I can think of to do this is to have a variable outside the try-catch-finally scope to save a reference to a thrown exception. Then propagate the "saved" exception up with any that occur in the finally block.
Is there a more elegant way of doing this? Perhaps an API call that will reveal this?
Here's some rough code of what I'm talking about:
Throwable t = null;
try {
stream.write(buffer);
} catch(IOException e) {
t = e; //Need to save this exception for finally
throw e;
} finally {
try {
stream.close(); //may throw exception
} catch(IOException e) {
//Is there something better than saving the exception from the exception block?
if(t!=null) {
//propagate the read exception as the "cause"--not great, but you see what I mean.
throw new IOException("Could not close in finally block: " + e.getMessage(),t);
} else {
throw e; //just pass it up
}
}//end close
}
Obviously, there are a number of other similar kludges that might involve saving the exception as an member variable, returning it from a method, etc... but I'm looking for something a bit more elegant.
Maybe something like Thread.getPendingException() or something similar? For that matter, is there an elegant solution in other languages?
This question actually spawned from comments in another question that raised an interesting question.
Your idea about setting a variable outside the scope of the try/catch/finally is correct.
There cannot be more than one exception propagating at once.
Instead of using a Boolean flag, I would store a reference to the Exception object.
That way, you not only have a way to check whether an exception occurred (the object will be null if no exception occurred), but you'll also have access to the exception object itself in your finally block if an exception did occur. You just have to remember to set the error object in all your catch blocks (iff rethrowing the error).
I think this is a missing C# language feature that should be added. The finally block should support a reference to the base Exception class similar to how the catch block supports it, so that a reference to the propagating exception is available to the finally block. This would be an easy task for the compiler, saving us the work of manually creating a local Exception variable and remembering to manually set its value before re-throwing an error, as well as preventing us from making the mistake of setting the Exception variable when not re-throwing an error (remember, it's only the uncaught exceptions we want to make visible to the finally block).
finally (Exception main_exception)
{
try
{
//cleanup that may throw an error (absolutely unpredictably)
}
catch (Exception err)
{
//Instead of throwing another error,
//just add data to main exception mentioning that an error occurred in the finally block!
main_exception.Data.Add( "finally_error", err );
//main exception propagates from finally block normally, with additional data
}
}
As demonstrated above... the reason that I'd like the exception available in the finally block, is that if my finally block did catch an exception of its own, then instead of overwriting the main exception by throwing a new error (bad) or just ignoring the error (also bad), it could add the error as additional data to the original error.
You could always set a boolean flag in your catch(es). I don't know of any "slick" way to do it, but then I'm more of a .Net guy.
Use logging...
try {
stream.write(buffer);
} catch(IOException ex) {
if (LOG.isErrorEnabled()) { // You can use log level whatever you want
LOG.error("Something wrong: " + ex.getMessage(), ex);
}
throw ex;
} finally {
if (stream != null) {
try {
stream.close();
} catch (IOException ex) {
if (LOG.isWarnEnabled()) {
LOG.warn("Could not close in finally block", ex);
}
}
}
}
In vb.net, it's possible to use a "Catch...When" statement to grab an exception to a local variable without having to actually catch it. This has a number of advantages. Among them:
If nothing is going to 'ultimately' catch the exception, an unhandled exception trap will be fired from the spot of the original exception. Much nicer than having the debugger trap at the last rethrow, especially since information that might be needed for debugging won't yet have gone out of scope or been swept up by 'finally' statements.
Although a rethrow won't clear the stack trace the way "Throw Ex" would, it will still often jinx the stack trace. If the exception isn't caught, the stack trace will be clean.
Because this feature is unsupported in vb, it may be helpful to write a vb wrapper to implement the code in C (e.g. given a MethodInvoker and an Action(Of Exception), perform the MethodInvoker within a "Try" and the Action in a "Finally".
One interesting quirk: it's possible for the Catch-When to see an exception which will end up getting overwritten by a Finally-clause exception. In some cases, this may be a good thing; in other cases it may be confusing. In any event, it's something to be aware of.
Related
I have the following Java code (that I thought was OK) but the IDE is warning me that "IOExcpetion e is immediately rethrown."
I'm new to exception handling in Java, and I wasn't aware there was anything wrong with doing that.
From what I'm reading, it looks like my other options is to simply delete the catch block and replace it with a finally block... but then it warns that the finally block is empty.
I don't have any ideas on what I should do differently.
private InputStream getFlutterAssetAsInputStream(String fromAsset) throws IOException {
String assetPath = binding
.getFlutterAssets()
.getAssetFilePathBySubpath(fromAsset, PACKAGE_NAME);
try {
return binding.getApplicationContext().getAssets().open(assetPath);
} catch (IOException e) {
throw e;
}
}
This
try {
return binding.getApplicationContext().getAssets().open(assetPath);
}
catch (IOException e) {
throw e;
}
is functionally equivalent to this:
return binding.getApplicationContext().getAssets().open(assetPath);
Your IDE is telling you that your try-catch is pointless. It does nothing.
So what do you want to do?
Pass the exception on to your caller? In which case get rid of the try-catch
Signal a different exception on to the caller - maybe one with a more appropriate error message for the specific circumstances? Then make and throw a new exception object with a better error message.
Do something to handle the situation - at the very least, maybe display an error message? Log the event to enable debugging? Then write code in the catch-block to do that. And then you have to decide what happens next.
Fundamentally, this is a design issue. IO errors happen. So how does this method that you're writing want to handle IO errors?
This question already has answers here:
When to catch the Exception vs When to throw the Exceptions?
(8 answers)
Closed 3 years ago.
So I have two general questions about java in general. The first is when would one use a try/catch in the body of the method versus using throws exception in declaring the method? Here is a little demonstration of what I mean. This:
public void whileChatting() throws IOException{}
versus
public void closeConnection() {
try {
} catch (IOException ioException) {
ioException.printStackTrace();
}
}
And then my second question is when does one know what type of exception to either catch or throw? By that I mean exceptions such as IOException or EOFException and so on...
If there's a good link someone could send me teaching all this (being that it's probably more complicated than I think) I would be just as grateful as if you answered it.
Thanks.
Throwing Exceptions
In your first example,
public void whileChatting() throws IOException{}
means that it will just throw the exception to whatever is calling the function. It can then be caught while calling that method with a try-catch block. such as
try{
whileChatting();
}
catch(IOException e){
e.printStackTrace();
}
Throwing a method basically propagates it up the chain, and so any method that calls this method will need to also include throws IOException, or the exception will need to be dealt with in the higher level method (by means of a try-catch block usually).
Catching Exceptions
Catching an exception is a way to gracefully deal with exceptions. The common thing to do is e.printStackTrace(); which prints details of the error to the console, however it's not always necessary. Sometimes you may want to do a System.exit(0) or even a System.out.println("Error in method whileCalling()")
With a catch block you can catch any type of exception! you can also do a try-catch-finally block which will run the code in the try block, catch any exceptions, and whether or not any exceptions are caught it will enter the finally block and run that code.
To know what Exception you might need to catch, you can look at the Javadocs for the class that may throw the exception. There you will find a list of every possible thing that the class can throw. You can also just catch Exception which will catch any Exception imaginable! (Well, granted it extends Exception)
And finally you can link catch blocks together like so.
try{
whileCalling();
}
catch(IOException e){
//handle this situation
}
catch(FileNotFoundException e){
//handle this situation
}
catch(Exception e){
//handle this situation
}
This will work like and else-if block and not catch duplicates.
So to answer your questions basically:
1: To throw an Exception means to have somebody else deal with it, whether this be another class, another method, or just to hoping it doesn't happen or else your program will crash(pretty bad practice).
2: To use a try catch block is to actually deal with the Exception however you see fit! printing out the stacktrace for debugging or giving the user a new prompt to re-input something maybe. (For instance a prompt that the user needs to enter a file location and then it throws a FileNotFoundException)
Hope that helps!
Two good rules of thumb:
You should only catch exceptions that you can actually handle
Throw Early/Catch Late
There's no hard and fast answer.
In general, you'll probably use "throws" much more often than you'll have a custom "try/catch". Simply because you'll have relatively few "decision" modules that "know how to recover", but you'll have correspondingly "many" modules that could throw exceptions.
You use try/catch when you want to treat its reason, otherwise you should propagate it so it can be treated at the right time.
A good start would be javadoc and tutorialspoint for exceptions
Basically is something like this:
throws - the function that throws and exception tells it's parent function that somenthing it's wrong. For instance you have a createFunction() throws SQLException where you are trying to insert 100 item in a database but the creation of number 98 fails. The createFunction() is used in your main() who receives this SQLException;
try/catch - the main() knows that createFunction() is suppose to throw an SQLException if something goes wrong so when it implements it puts it in a try/catch block, this way if an SQLException is actually thrown you can execute a fall-back plan in the catch block such as a database rollback.
Actual code of what I just said:
createFunction(Connection connection) throws SQLException {
//insert items in the database
}
main(){
try{
createFunction(connection);
}
catch (SQLException e){
connection.rollback();
}
}
The goal is to be able to do:
throw new RuntimeException();
without it printing:
Exception in thread "main" java.util.RuntimeException
at grame.GrameManager.add(GrameManager.java:40)
at grame.GrameManager.add(GrameManager.java:47)
at grame.Entity.<init>(Entity.java:56)
at grame.Entity.<init>(Entity.java:28)
at test.Test.main(Test.java:20)
(for example).
Is this possible? If so, how would I go about doing this?
Since exceptions are important, you could use a logging mechanism like log4j (http://logging.apache.org/log4j/1.2/) and set the logging to a different level when you don't want some exceptions to be printed or log to a file instead of console for example.
If you just don't care about the exception, catch it and do nothing with it (empty catch, which is awful).
You can redirect System.err by setting System.setErr(null);
No thrown exception ever directly generates a stacktrace to the error console. It's up to the code who is calling it to do so. In the case of a main program:
public static void main(String args[]) throws Exception {
// do something that throws an exception
}
If you don't catch the exception, the system will actually spit it out to the console i believe.
Somewhere along the way, you need to deal with the exception. If showing it in the GUI is what you want, then you'll have to do something like this:
public interface ExceptionHandler {
void handleException(Exception e);
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
ExceptionHandler exceptionHandler = ...;
try {
// something that might throw an exception
}
catch (Exception e) {
exceptionHandler.handle(e);
}
}
Just catch the exception, and don't put anything in the catch block.
I should add that doing this is generally a bad idea. Having that stack trace, or some sort of message is very useful when finding out what went wrong in your program.
If you want the method to kill the program without printing a stack trace, place it in a try/catch block, and under catch simply use the statement:
System.exit(1)
This lets the system know that the program exited with an irregular (non-zero) state, but does not print anything to System.err.
All that you really need to do is catch it... However, this is a really bad idea. You may want to make your own exception and catch that. This way you will not swallow exceptions that you should not be ignoring. The only time that you should really consider to do this, is if you cannot allow your application to blow up. If that is the case then you should at the very least log the error.
This explains it better than I can (and is a good resource regardless). Basically, it suggests that:
"If a client can reasonably be expected to recover from an exception,
make it a
checked exception. If a client cannot do anything to recover from the exception,
make it an unchecked exception".
Like this:
try {
some code...
} catch (RuntimeException e) {
}
1. Java compiler only cares during compilation that you have given a catch for a try, whether you implement any code in the catch or not.
2. You can keep the catch block empty, or print it on the console, log it..etc....
eg:
try{
}catch(Exception ex){
}
3. But printStackTrace() prints the method name, class name , file name and the line number where the exception has occurred.
In one of my interview, they asked me, is it possible to write Throwable in catch() like this
try{
some code
}
catch(Throwable t)
{
}
I said yes. it will not give a compile time error but jvm would not handle it if there occur an Error(sub class of Throwable ), since Errors are irreversible conditions that can not be handled by jvm. than they further asked than what is the use of writing Throwable .
Please give me proper reply can we use Throwable in catch. if yes why.
It is possible to catch Throwable. And yes, you will also catch instances of java.lang.Error which is a problem when it comes to e.g. OutOfMemoryError's. In general I'd not catch Throwable's. If you have to, you should do it at the highest place of your call stack, e.g. the main method (you may want to catch it, log it, and rethrow it).
I agree with your argumentation, it does not make sense to catch events you're not able to handle (e.g. OutOfMemoryError). A nice post is here.
Yes it is possible to catch Throwable.
Whether the JVM / application will be able to continue if you catch an error depends on the actual error that occurred, what caused it, and what (if anything) your application does next.
In some cases, the JVM may be in such a bad way that no recovery is possible.
In some cases, the JVM is fine ... as long as you don't do certain things. Class loading errors are a good example. If your application doesn't attempt to use the class or dependent classes that you failed to load, you should be fine to continue. (In reality, applications are not designed to continue without classes that fail to load ... but if it was, it could.)
In some cases, the core JVM will be fine, but unspecified damage could have been done to the application's data structures, and/or to its threads and computation state. OOMEs are liable to do this to you, especially if your application is not designed to deal with threads that die unexpectedly.
Catching and recovering from OOMEs is problematic for another reason. While the termination of the current computation will free up some heap space, there's a good chance that it won't free up enough space. So you can easily get into a situation where your application is repeatedly throwing and catching lots of OOMEs, and making no real progress.
All of this means that it is generally a bad idea to try to recover from errors. And that's in line with what the javadoc for error says:
"An Error is a subclass of Throwable that indicates serious problems that a reasonable application should not try to catch."
Yes we can catch Throwable but as best practice, it is not advised to catch Throwable.
Catching Throwable includes Errors too, we should not catch errors, it helps to identify JVM issues.
Throwable can be used instead of any individual exception/error. However it is recommended to pass through ThreadDeadException. So you can add extra catch clause for it, or filter by type.
Catching Throwable will catch all Exceptions (including RuntimeExceptions) and all Errors. It is not recommended to catch any of the parent Throwables (Throwable, Error, Exception or RuntimeException) but it is not uncommon to find this if a method throws too many checked exceptions or throws Exception.
It is not uncommon in certain APIs to document a method as throws Exception. This provides some flexibility at the expense of control. I like to define a new Exception class to handle this sort of case but that is personal preference.
The following simple class shows samples of the throwable types and corresponding catch blocks.
public class ThrowableExamples {
public static void main(String[] args) {
try {
// throw new NoSuchMethodException("Exception");
// throw new Exception("Exception");
// throw new IllegalStateException("RuntimeException");
// throw new RuntimeException("RuntimeException");
throw new NoSuchMethodError("Error");
// throw new Error("Error");
// throw new Throwable("Throwable");
} catch (RuntimeException e) {
System.out.println("Caught RuntimeException: " + (e.getMessage().equals("RuntimeException") ? "Expected" : "Unexpected"));
} catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println("Caught Exception: " + (e.getMessage().equals("Exception") ? "Expected" : "Unexpected"));
} catch (Error e) {
System.out.println("Caught Error: " + (e.getMessage().equals("Error") ? "Expected" : "Unexpected"));
} catch (Throwable e) {
System.out.println("Caught Throwable: " + (e.getMessage().equals("Throwable") ? "Expected" : "Unexpected"));
}
}
}
Is it a bad practice to catch Throwable?
For example something like this:
try {
// Some code
} catch(Throwable e) {
// handle the exception
}
Is this a bad practice or we should be as specific as possible?
You need to be as specific as possible. Otherwise unforeseen bugs might creep away this way.
Besides, Throwable covers Error as well and that's usually no point of return. You don't want to catch/handle that, you want your program to die immediately so that you can fix it properly.
This is a bad idea. In fact, even catching Exception is usually a bad idea. Let's consider an example:
try {
inputNumber = NumberFormat.getInstance().formatNumber( getUserInput() );
} catch(Throwable e) {
inputNumber = 10; //Default, user did not enter valid number
}
Now, let's say that getUserInput() blocks for a while, and another thread stops your thread in the worst possible way ( it calls thread.stop() ). Your catch block will catch a ThreadDeath Error. This is super bad. The behavior of your code after catching that Exception is largely undefined.
A similar problem occurs with catching Exception. Maybe getUserInput() failed because of an InterruptException, or a permission denied exception while trying to log the results, or all sorts of other failures. You have no idea what went wrong, as because of that, you also have no idea how to fix the problem.
You have three better options:
1 -- Catch exactly the Exception(s) you know how to handle:
try {
inputNumber = NumberFormat.getInstance().formatNumber( getUserInput() );
} catch(ParseException e) {
inputNumber = 10; //Default, user did not enter valid number
}
2 -- Rethrow any exception you run into and don't know how to handle:
try {
doSomethingMysterious();
} catch(Exception e) {
log.error("Oh man, something bad and mysterious happened",e);
throw e;
}
3 -- Use a finally block so you don't have to remember to rethrow:
Resources r = null;
try {
r = allocateSomeResources();
doSomething(r);
} finally {
if(r!=null) cleanUpResources(r);
}
Also be aware that when you catch Throwable, you can also catch InterruptedException which requires a special treatment. See Dealing with InterruptedException for more details.
If you only want to catch unchecked exceptions, you might also consider this pattern
try {
...
} catch (RuntimeException exception) {
//do something
} catch (Error error) {
//do something
}
This way, when you modify your code and add a method call that can throw a checked exception, the compiler will remind you of that and then you can decide what to do for this case.
straight from the javadoc of the Error class (which recommends not to catch these):
* An <code>Error</code> is a subclass of <code>Throwable</code>
* that indicates serious problems that a reasonable application
* should not try to catch. Most such errors are abnormal conditions.
* The <code>ThreadDeath</code> error, though a "normal" condition,
* is also a subclass of <code>Error</code> because most applications
* should not try to catch it.
* A method is not required to declare in its <code>throws</code>
* clause any subclasses of <code>Error</code> that might be thrown
* during the execution of the method but not caught, since these
* errors are abnormal conditions that should never occur.
*
* #author Frank Yellin
* #version %I%, %G%
* #see java.lang.ThreadDeath
* #since JDK1.0
It's not a bad practice if you absolutely cannot have an exception bubble out of a method.
It's a bad practice if you really can't handle the exception. Better to add "throws" to the method signature than just catch and re-throw or, worse, wrap it in a RuntimeException and re-throw.
Catching Throwable is sometimes necessary if you are using libraries that throw Errors over-enthusiastically, otherwise your library may kill your application.
However, it would be best under these circumstances to specify only the specific errors thrown by the library, rather than all Throwables.
The question is a bit vague; are you asking "is it OK to catch Throwable", or "is it OK to catch a Throwable and not do anything"? Many people here answered the latter, but that's a side issue; 99% of the time you should not "consume" or discard the exception, whether you are catching Throwable or IOException or whatever.
If you propagate the exception, the answer (like the answer to so many questions) is "it depends". It depends on what you're doing with the exception—why you're catching it.
A good example of why you would want to catch Throwable is to provide some sort of cleanup if there is any error. For example in JDBC, if an error occurs during a transaction, you would want to roll back the transaction:
try {
…
} catch(final Throwable throwable) {
connection.rollback();
throw throwable;
}
Note that the exception is not discarded, but propagated.
But as a general policy, catching Throwable because you don't have a reason and are too lazy to see which specific exceptions are being thrown is poor form and a bad idea.
Throwable is the base class for all classes than can be thrown (not only exceptions). There is little you can do if you catch an OutOfMemoryError or KernelError (see When to catch java.lang.Error?)
catching Exceptions should be enough.
it depends on your logic or to be more specific to your options / possibilities. If there is any specific exception that you can possibly react on in a meaningful way, you could catch it first and do so.
If there isn't and you're sure you will do the same thing for all exceptions and errors (for example exit with an error-message), than it is not problem to catch the throwable.
Usually the first case holds and you wouldn't catch the throwable. But there still are plenty of cases where catching it works fine.
Although it is described as a very bad practice, you may sometimes find rare cases that it not only useful but also mandatory. Here are two examples.
In a web application where you must show a meaning full error page to user.
This code make sure this happens as it is a big try/catch around all your request handelers ( servlets, struts actions, or any controller ....)
try{
//run the code which handles user request.
}catch(Throwable ex){
LOG.error("Exception was thrown: {}", ex);
//redirect request to a error page.
}
}
As another example, consider you have a service class which serves fund transfer business. This method returns a TransferReceipt if transfer is done or NULL if it couldn't.
String FoundtransferService.doTransfer( fundtransferVO);
Now imaging you get a List of fund transfers from user and you must use above service to do them all.
for(FundTransferVO fundTransferVO : fundTransferVOList){
FoundtransferService.doTransfer( foundtransferVO);
}
But what will happen if any exception happens? You should not stop, as one transfer may have been success and one may not, you should keep go on through all user List, and show the result to each transfer. So you end up with this code.
for(FundTransferVO fundTransferVO : fundTransferVOList){
FoundtransferService.doTransfer( foundtransferVO);
}catch(Throwable ex){
LOG.error("The transfer for {} failed due the error {}", foundtransferVO, ex);
}
}
You can browse lots of open source projects to see that the throwable is really cached and handled. For example here is a search of tomcat,struts2 and primefaces:
https://github.com/apache/tomcat/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=catch%28Throwable
https://github.com/apache/struts/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=catch%28Throwable
https://github.com/primefaces/primefaces/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=catch%28Throwable
Generally speaking you want to avoid catching Errors but I can think of (at least) two specific cases where it's appropriate to do so:
You want to shut down the application in response to errors, especially AssertionError which is otherwise harmless.
Are you implementing a thread-pooling mechanism similar to ExecutorService.submit() that requires you to forward exceptions back to the user so they can handle it.
Throwable is the superclass of all the errors and excetions.
If you use Throwable in a catch clause, it will not only catch all exceptions, it will also catch all errors. Errors are thrown by the JVM to indicate serious problems that are not intended to be handled by an application. Typical examples for that are the OutOfMemoryError or the StackOverflowError. Both are caused by situations that are outside of the control of the application and can’t be handled. So you shouldn't catch Throwables unless your are pretty confident that it will only be an exception reside inside Throwable.
If we use throwable, then it covers Error as well and that's it.
Example.
public class ExceptionTest {
/**
* #param args
*/
public static void m1() {
int i = 10;
int j = 0;
try {
int k = i / j;
System.out.println(k);
} catch (Throwable th) {
th.printStackTrace();
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
m1();
}
}
Output:
java.lang.ArithmeticException: / by zero
at com.infy.test.ExceptionTest.m1(ExceptionTest.java:12)
at com.infy.test.ExceptionTest.main(ExceptionTest.java:25)
A more differentiated answer would be: it depends.
The difference between an Exception and an Error is that an Exception is a state that has to be expected, while an Error is an unexpected state, which is usually fatal. Errors usually cannot be recovered from and require resetting major parts of the program or even the whole JVM.
Catching Exceptions is something you should always do to handle states that are likely to happen, which is why it is enforced by the JVM. I.E. opening a file can cause a FileNotFoundException, calling a web resource can result in a TimeoutException, and so on. Your code needs to be prepared to handle those situations as they can commonly occur. How you handle those is up to you, there is no need to recover from everything, but your application should not boot back to desktop just because a web-server took a little longer to answer.
Catching Errors is something you should do only if it is really necessary. Generally you cannot recover from Errors and should not try to, unless you have a good reason to. Reasons to catch Errors are to close critical resources that would otherwise be left open, or if you i.E. have a server that runs plugins, which can then stop or restart the plugin that caused the error. Other reasons are to log additional information that might help to debug that error later, in which case you of course should rethrow it to make sure the application terminates properly.
Rule of thumb: Unless you have an important reason to catch Errors, don't.
Therefore use catch (Throwable t) only in such really important situation, otherwise stick to catch (Exception e)