Related
Consider the code:
PreparedStatement ps = null;
ResultSet rs = null;
try {
ps = conn.createStatement(myQueryString);
rs = ps.executeQuery();
// process the results...
} catch (java.sql.SQLException e) {
log.error("an error!", e);
throw new MyAppException("I'm sorry. Your query did not work.");
} finally {
ps.close();
rs.close();
}
The above does not compile, because both PreparedStatement.close() and ResultSet.close() throw a java.sql.SQLException. So do I add a try/catch block to the finally clause? Or move the close statements into the try clause? Or just not bother calling close?
In Java 7, you should not close them explicitly, but use automatic resource management to ensure that resources are closed and exceptions are handled appropriately. Exception handling works like this:
Exception in try | Exception in close | Result
-----------------+--------------------+----------------------------------------
No | No | Continue normally
No | Yes | Throw the close() exception
Yes | No | Throw the exception from try block
Yes | Yes | Add close() exception to main exception
| | as "suppressed", throw main exception
Hopefully that makes sense. In allows pretty code, like this:
private void doEverythingInOneSillyMethod(String key)
throws MyAppException
{
try (Connection db = ds.getConnection()) {
db.setReadOnly(true);
...
try (PreparedStatement ps = db.prepareStatement(...)) {
ps.setString(1, key);
...
try (ResultSet rs = ps.executeQuery()) {
...
}
}
} catch (SQLException ex) {
throw new MyAppException("Query failed.", ex);
}
}
Prior to Java 7, it's best to use nested finally blocks, rather than testing references for null.
The example I'll show might look ugly with the deep nesting, but in practice, well-designed code probably isn't going to create a connection, statement, and results all in the same method; often, each level of nesting involves passing a resource to another method, which uses it as a factory for another resource. With this approach, exceptions from a close() will mask an exception from inside the try block. That can be overcome, but it results in even more messy code, and requires a custom exception class that provides the "suppressed" exception chaining present in Java 7.
Connection db = ds.getConnection();
try {
PreparedStatement ps = ...;
try {
ResultSet rs = ...
try {
...
}
finally {
rs.close();
}
}
finally {
ps.close();
}
}
finally {
db.close();
}
If you're really hand-rolling your own jdbc it definitely gets messy. The close() in the finally needs to get wrapped with its own try catch, which, at the very least, is ugly. You can't skip the close, although the resources will get cleared when the connection is closed (which might not be right away, if you're using a pool). Actually, one of the main selling points of using a framework (e.g. hibernate) to manage your db access is to manage the connection and result set handling so you don't forget to close.
You can do something simple like this, which at least hides the mess, and guarantees that you don't forget something.
public static void close(ResultSet rs, Statement ps, Connection conn)
{
if (rs!=null)
{
try
{
rs.close();
}
catch(SQLException e)
{
logger.error("The result set cannot be closed.", e);
}
}
if (ps != null)
{
try
{
ps.close();
} catch (SQLException e)
{
logger.error("The statement cannot be closed.", e);
}
}
if (conn != null)
{
try
{
conn.close();
} catch (SQLException e)
{
logger.error("The data source connection cannot be closed.", e);
}
}
}
and then,
finally {
close(rs, ps, null);
}
For file I/O, I generally add a try/catch to the finally block. However, you must be careful not to throw any exceptions from the finally block, since they will cause the original exception (if any) to be lost.
See this article for a more specific example of database connection closing.
Don't waste your time coding low-level exception management, use an higher-level API like Spring-JDBC, or a custom wrapper around connection/statement/rs objects, to hide the messy try-catch ridden code.
Also note:
"When a Statement object is closed, its current ResultSet object, if one exists, is also closed. "
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/sql/Statement.html#close()
It should be sufficient to close only the PreparedStatement in a finally, and only if it is not already closed. If you want to be really particular though, close the ResultSet FIRST, not after closing the PreparedStatement (closing it after, like some of the examples here, should actually guarantee an exception, since it is already closed).
I usually have a utility method which can close things like this, including taking care not to try to do anything with a null reference.
Usually if close() throws an exception I don't actually care, so I just log the exception and swallow it - but another alternative would be to convert it into a RuntimeException. Either way, I recommend doing it in a utility method which is easy to call, as you may well need to do this in many places.
Note that your current solution won't close the ResultSet if closing the PreparedStatement fails - it's better to use nested finally blocks.
Building on #erickson's answer, why not just do it in one try block like this?
private void doEverythingInOneSillyMethod(String key) throws MyAppException
{
try (Connection db = ds.getConnection();
PreparedStatement ps = db.prepareStatement(...)) {
db.setReadOnly(true);
ps.setString(1, key);
ResultSet rs = ps.executeQuery()
...
} catch (SQLException ex) {
throw new MyAppException("Query failed.", ex);
}
}
Note that you don't need to create the ResultSet object inside the try block as ResultSet's are automatically closed when the PreparedStatement object is closed.
A ResultSet object is automatically closed when the Statement object
that generated it is closed, re-executed, or used to retrieve the next
result from a sequence of multiple results.
Reference: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/sql/ResultSet.html
If your are using Java 7 you can use the improvements in the exception handling mechanisms in those classes that implement AutoCloseable (i.e. PreparedStatement, Resultset)
You might also find this question interesting: Closing ResultSet in Java 7
I know this is an old question, but just in case someone is looking for the answer, java now has the try-with-resouce solution.
static String readFirstLineFromFile(String path) throws IOException {
try (BufferedReader br =
new BufferedReader(new FileReader(path))) {
return br.readLine();
}
}
Do no omit calling close. It may cause problems.
I prefer adding try/catch block to the finally.
focus finally clause,
finally {
try {
rs.close();
ps.close();
} catch (Exception e) {
// Do something
}
}
I think you have to modify 2 points.
First, use try & catch again in fainlly clause.
Second, do rs.close() before doing ps.close().
fly1997#naver.com
Probably an old (though simple) way to do things, but it still works:
public class DatabaseTest {
private Connection conn;
private Statement st;
private ResultSet rs;
private PreparedStatement ps;
public DatabaseTest() {
// if needed
}
public String getSomethingFromDatabase(...) {
String something = null;
// code here
try {
// code here
} catch(SQLException se) {
se.printStackTrace();
} finally { // will always execute even after a return statement
closeDatabaseResources();
}
return something;
}
private void closeDatabaseResources() {
try {
if(conn != null) {
System.out.println("conn closed");
conn.close();
}
if(st != null) {
System.out.println("st closed");
st.close();
}
if(rs != null) {
System.out.println("rs closed");
rs.close();
}
if(ps != null) {
System.out.println("ps closed");
ps.close();
}
} catch(SQLException se) {
se.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
I use this..
finally
{
if (ps != null) ps.close();
if (rs != null) rs.close();
}
Is there anything wrong with using a parent function to handle all the messy catch/finally stuff in a connection pool?
public Connection getConnection() {
try {
return this.dataSource.getConnection();
} catch (SQLException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
return null;
}
public ResultSet executeQuery(Connection connection, PreparedStatement stmt) {
try {
return stmt.executeQuery();
} catch (SQLException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
} finally {
if (stmt != null) {
try {
stmt.close();
} catch (SQLException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
if (connection != null) {
try {
connection.close();
} catch (SQLException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
return null;
}
No problem except the fact that you are eating the exceptions and not throwing them.Throwing an exception is a better idea to allow the calling methods to take appropriate actions.
Note: if you can move to Java 7 and use try with resource then you will save a lot of such mess. Learn more about it here: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/exceptions/tryResourceClose.html
This is an example of the Facade Pattern.
There's nothing wrong with it, except your should make those methods static, so they are (stateless) utility methods.
You'll have much cleaner code if you use the try-with-resources pattern and focus on minimizing the scope of your resources. In particular, you problematically open resources (the connection and the statement) separately from the close behavior. By splitting it up, you make it easy to make mistakes, or create inefficient code. For example, perhaps you should not close the connection after executing the query.
Instead, you should generally open and close resources in the same place, and anywhere you pass around these resources you trust (create an invariant) that they are and will remain open. This cleanly compartmentalizes the obtaining-resources behavior from the using-resources behavior, and lets you clearly limit the scope these resources are open for.
Compare your code:
Connection conn = getConnection();
PreparedStatement ps = ...; // construct PreparedStatement
ResultSet rs = executeQuery(conn, ps);
// use ResultSet
/* now secretly your Connection and PreparedStatement are closed (even if you wanted
to use them again) though your result set is still open and needs to be closed.
Admittedly it's concise, but what's actually going on is very unclear. */
To my code:
public static void main(String[] args) {
try(Connection conn = this.dataSource.getConnection()) {
// All calls in this block, and only calls in this block, can use the connection
buildObjectWithDBData(conn); // method does exactly what the name implies
// do more calls against our connection as needed
}
}
public static void buildObjectWithDBData(Connection conn) {
try(PreparedStatement ps = /* generate prepared statement */;
ResultSet rs = ps.executeQuery()) {
// do work with result set, populate the data we need
}
// at this point we know the connection is alive in a clean, stable state,
// the resources opened here are closed, and we've done the work we need
}
I'll grant, mine is a little more verbose. But it's much more clear what it's doing, and at every step in the process we explicitly limit the scope of our objects and resources to as little as possible, rather than relying on side-effects of arbitrary method calls to secretly close objects and leave them still in scope, but unusable.
Just came across a rather confusing exam question, and my lecturer is away on holidays, so I come to StackOverflow begging for help!
The question is as follows :
"Joe has his own JoeConnection class for making connections between his computer and other computers. The class provides the following constructor and instance methods :
JoeConnection( String address ): Make a connection with the URL address.
void writeLn( String text ) : Write text to the JoeConnection.
String readLn( ): Read a line of text from the JoeConnection.
void clode( ) : Close the JoeConnection.
Joe's connections regularly fail and this causes errors. Using proper exception handling, demonstrate how to use Joe's JoeConnection class to
make a JoeConnection with the URL http://students.chat.box
write "Hello world" to the JoeConnection
read in a string from the JoeConnection
close the connection.
The connection handling should provide as man details as possible about the cause of failure and print the stack trace which led to the failure.
I have no idea how to tackle this, but I assume it is something similar to this :
public class Test {
try {
JoeConnection connection = new JoeConnection(http://students.chat.box);
} catch {
connectionError e; printStacktrace();}
}
}
Can anyone please help me figure this out? Thanks a lot.
Without an indication of what exceptions are thrown and why, the only proper exception handling is no handling at all. Don't catch an exception if you don't know how to fix the problem that triggered it.
But the further instructions in your assignment introduce a different notion of "proper." You're supposed to print a stack trace. So catch the exception and print a stack trace. You were on the right track, but your syntax was wrong. Refer back to your textbook and lecture notes to remind yourself what the syntax is for catching exceptions (and for passing strings to functions, for that matter).
try {
JoeConnection connection = new JoeConnection("http://students.chat.box");
connection.writeLn("Hello world");
// etc
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
"Proper exception handling" is a little vague. I agree with #Rob Kennedy's statement that no exception handling is appropriate unless you know why the exception is thrown and what should be done with it. Otherwise, the exception should be allowed to propagate. So, for example:
void foo(String address) throws JoeException {
JoeConnection connection = new JoeConnection(address);
try {
connection.writeLn("Hello World!");
} finally {
// Ensure the connection is closed when finished.
// This happens whether an exception occurs or not.
connection.close();
}
}
If you wanted to catch the exception just to print it, you could do something like this:
void foo(String address) throws JoeException {
try {
JoeConnection connection = new JoeConnection(address);
try {
connection.writeLn("Hello World!");
} finally {
connection.close();
}
} catch (JoeException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
// Don't know what to do about this; rethrow.
throw e;
}
}
There is a subtlety here that even experience Java programmers can miss, though. If an exception occurs while creating the connection, it doesn't need to be closed. If an exception occurs while writing to the connection, it does need to be closed; thus the finally clause. However, the act of closing can also throw an exception. If closing the connection throws an exception, only that exception will be thrown by the try statement. If the finally clause was reached as a result of the writeLn operation throwing an exception, the exception of the writeLn call will be effectively ignored. This is probably not what you want.
Instead, we can try something ugly like this:
void foo(String address) throws JoeException {
try {
JoeConnection connection = new JoeConnection(address);
boolean normalCompletion = false;
try {
connection.writeLn("Hello World!");
normalCompletion = true;
} finally {
if (normalCompletion) {
// The writeLn operation completed normally.
// Propagate an exception thrown by the close operation.
connection.close();
} else {
// The writeLn operation completed abruptly.
// Ignore an exception thrown by the close operation.
try {
connection.close();
} catch (JoeException e) {
/* empty */
}
}
}
} catch (JoeException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
// Don't know what to do about this; rethrow.
throw e;
}
}
This looks (and is) syntactically hideous, but it does show "proper" exception handling of a sort. The language enhancement from Project Coin should clean this up a bit.
For starters, I can help you out with the syntax of what you wrote:
try {
JoeConnection connection = new JoeConnection("http://students.chat.box");
}
catch (JoeConnectionException e) {
e.printStacktrace();
}
I took the liberty of changing the linebreaks and renaming 'connectionError' as JoeConnectionException which looks more conventional to me.
You'll have to do something similar for the readLn, writeLn, and close method calls since it said that the connection regularly fails (i.e. not just while connecting).
Cheers, good luck.
Catching an exception should look like:
try {
JoeConnection conn = new JoeConnection(url);
} catch (YourExceptionClassNameHere e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
Also: if you want to use a literal String, make sure you include the quotations. (It should be "http://students.chat.box".)
It's good to have a finally as well:
public class Test {
try {
JoeConnection connection = new JoeConnection(http://students.chat.box);
}
catch(Exception e) {
e.printStacktrace();
}
finally {
if(connection != null) {
connection.close();
}
}
}
Typically you handle exceptions if you know what to do with them (this involves error-recovery logic or wrapping an exception and throwing it to a higher level).
Assuming that each method throws an exception, you could do something like this for "maximum detail":
public class Test {
JoeConnection connection = null;
try {
connection = new JoeConnection("http://students.chat.box");
...
...
}
catch(OpenException e) {
System.out.println("Error while opening connection");
e.printStacktrace();
}
catch(WriteException e) {
System.out.println("Error while writing to connection");
e.printStacktrace();
}
catch(ReadException e) {
System.out.println("Error while reading from connection");
e.printStacktrace();
}
finally {
if(connection != null) {
connection.close();
}
}
}
As I was cleaning up some code, FindBugs pointed me to a bit of JDBC code that uses Connection, CallableStatement, and ResultSet objects. Here's a snippet from that code:
CallableStatement cStmt = getConnection().prepareCall("...");
...
ResultSet rs = cStmt.executeQuery();
while ( rs.next() )
{
...
}
cStmt.close();
rs.close();
con.close();
FindBugs pointed out that these should be within a finally block. I started refactoring my code to do this and I started to wonder how to handle the code within the finally block.
It's possible that the creation of the CallableStatement of Connection objects would throw an exception, leaving my ResultSet object as null. When I try to close the ResultSet, I'd get a NullPointerException and my Connection would, in turn, never get closed. Indeed, this thread brings up the same concept and shows that wrapping your close() invocations in a null check is a good idea.
But what about other possible exceptions? According to the Java API spec, Statement.close() can throw a SQLException "if a database error occurs". So, even if my CallableStatement is not null and I can successfully call close() on it, I might still get an exception and not have a chance to close my other resources.
The only "fail safe" solution I can think of is to wrap each close() invocation in its own try/catch block, like this:
finally {
try {
cStmt.close();
} catch (Exception e) { /* Intentionally Swallow Exception */ }
try {
rs.close();
} catch (Exception e) { /* Intentionally Swallow Exception */ }
try {
con.close();
} catch (Exception e) { /* Intentionally Swallow Exception */ }
}
Boy, if that doesn't look awful. Is there a better way to go about this?
I think the best answer has already being mentioned, but I thought it could be interesing to mention that you could consider the new JDK 7 feature of autoclosable resources.
try{
try(Connection conn = DriverManager.getConnection("jdbc:mysql://localhost/hrdb", "obiwan", "kenobi");
Statement stm = conn.createStatement();
ResultSet rs = stm.executeQuery("select name from department")) {
while(rs.next()){
System.out.println(rs.getString("name"));
}
}
}catch(SQLException e){
//you might wanna check e.getSuppressed() as well
//log, wrap, rethrow as desired.
}
Not all of us can migrate to JDK 7 now, but for those who can start playing with the developer preview, this offer an interesting way of doing things and certainly may deprecate other approaches in the near future.
Use Lombok's cleanup, if you can:
#Cleanup
Connection c = ...
#Cleanup
statement = c.prepareStatement(...);
#Cleanup
rs = statement.execute(...);
This works translates to three nested try-finally blocks and works fine with exception. Never ever swallow an exception without a very good reason!
An alternative:
Write an own utility method like this:
public static void close(ResultSet rs, Statement stmt, Connection con) throws SQLException {
try {
try {
if (rs!=null) rs.close();
} finally {
if (stmt!=null) stmt.close();
}
} finally {
if (con!=null) con.close();
}
}
and use it in
try {
Connection con = ...
Statement stmt = ...
ResultSet rs = ...
} finally {
close(rs, stmt, con);
}
and let the Exception bubble up or handle it as you want.
Well basically that is what you do except you first of all don't necessarily swallow the exception (you can null check and at least LOG the exception). Second, you can set up a nice utility class with things like
public static void close(ResultSet rs) {
try { if (rs != null) rs.close();
} catch (SQLException (e) {
log.error("",e);
}
}
Then you just static import that class.
your finally becomes something like
finally {
close(resultset);
close(statement);
close(connection);
}
which really isn't that hideous.
You only have to close the Connection.
try
{
cStmt.close();
}
catch(Exception e)
{
/* Intentionally Swallow Exception */
}
From docs.oracle.com:
A Statement object is automatically closed when it is garbage collected. When a Statement object is closed, its current ResultSet object, if one exists, is also closed.
Calling close() on a Connection releases its database and JDBC resources.
The only way I know to hide all that ugly try-catch boilerplate code is to utilize something like Spring's JBDC Template.
You can wrap one block into another block:
try{
Connection c = ...
try{
statement = c.prepareStatement(...);
try{
rs = statement.execute(...);
}finally{
rs.close();
}
}finally{
statement.close()
}
}finally{
c.close();
}
}catch(SQLException e){}
Use the lowermost catch-block for everything that might crop up
Is there an elegant way to handle exceptions that are thrown in finally block?
For example:
try {
// Use the resource.
}
catch( Exception ex ) {
// Problem with the resource.
}
finally {
try{
resource.close();
}
catch( Exception ex ) {
// Could not close the resource?
}
}
How do you avoid the try/catch in the finally block?
I usually do it like this:
try {
// Use the resource.
} catch( Exception ex ) {
// Problem with the resource.
} finally {
// Put away the resource.
closeQuietly( resource );
}
Elsewhere:
protected void closeQuietly( Resource resource ) {
try {
if (resource != null) {
resource.close();
}
} catch( Exception ex ) {
log( "Exception during Resource.close()", ex );
}
}
I typically use one of the closeQuietly methods in org.apache.commons.io.IOUtils:
public static void closeQuietly(OutputStream output) {
try {
if (output != null) {
output.close();
}
} catch (IOException ioe) {
// ignore
}
}
If you're using Java 7, and resource implements AutoClosable, you can do this (using InputStream as an example):
try (InputStream resource = getInputStream()) {
// Use the resource.
}
catch( Exception ex ) {
// Problem with the resource.
}
Arguably a bit over the top, but maybe useful if you're letting exceptions bubble up and you can't log anything from within your method (e.g. because it's a library and you'd rather let the calling code handle exceptions and logging):
Resource resource = null;
boolean isSuccess = false;
try {
resource = Resource.create();
resource.use();
// Following line will only run if nothing above threw an exception.
isSuccess = true;
} finally {
if (resource != null) {
if (isSuccess) {
// let close throw the exception so it isn't swallowed.
resource.close();
} else {
try {
resource.close();
} catch (ResourceException ignore) {
// Just swallow this one because you don't want it
// to replace the one that came first (thrown above).
}
}
}
}
UPDATE: I looked into this a bit more and found a great blog post from someone who has clearly thought about this more than me: http://illegalargumentexception.blogspot.com/2008/10/java-how-not-to-make-mess-of-stream.html He goes one step further and combines the two exceptions into one, which I could see being useful in some cases.
As of Java 7 you no longer need to explicitly close resources in a finally block instead you can use try-with-resources syntax. The try-with-resources statement is a try statement that declares one or more resources. A resource is an object that must be closed after the program is finished with it. The try-with-resources statement ensures that each resource is closed at the end of the statement. Any object that implements java.lang.AutoCloseable, which includes all objects which implement java.io.Closeable, can be used as a resource.
Assume the following code:
try( Connection con = null;
Statement stmt = con.createStatement();
Result rs= stmt.executeQuery(QUERY);)
{
count = rs.getInt(1);
}
If any exception happens the close method will be called on each of these three resources in opposite order in which they were created. It means the close method would be called first for ResultSetm then the Statement and at the end for the Connection object.
It's also important to know that any exceptions that occur when the close methods is automatically called are suppressed. These suppressed exceptions can be retrieved by getsuppressed() method defined in the Throwable class.
Source: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/exceptions/tryResourceClose.html
Ignoring exceptions which occur in a 'finally' block is generally a bad idea unless one knows what those exceptions will be and what conditions they will represent. In the normal try/finally usage pattern, the try block places things into a state the outside code won't be expecting, and the finally block restores those things' state to what the outside code expects. Outside code which catches an exception will generally expect that, despite the exception, everything has been restored to a normal state. For example, suppose some code starts a transaction and then tries to add two records; the "finally" block performs a "rollback if not committed" operation. A caller might be prepared for an exception to occur during the execution of the second "add" operation, and may expect that if it catches such an exception, the database will be in the state it was before either operation was attempted. If, however, a second exception occurs during the rollback, bad things could happen if the caller makes any assumptions about the database state. The rollback failure represents a major crisis--one which should not be caught by code expecting a mere "Failed to add record" exception.
My personal inclination would be to have a finally method catch exceptions that occur and wrap them in a "CleanupFailedException", recognizing that such failure represents a major problem and such an exception should not be caught lightly.
One solution, if the two Exceptions are two different classes
try {
...
}
catch(package1.Exception err)
{
...
}
catch(package2.Exception err)
{
...
}
finally
{
}
But sometimes you cannot avoid this second try-catch. e.g. for closing a stream
InputStream in=null;
try
{
in= new FileInputStream("File.txt");
(..)// do something that might throw an exception during the analysis of the file, e.g. a SQL error
}
catch(SQLException err)
{
//handle exception
}
finally
{
//at the end, we close the file
if(in!=null) try { in.close();} catch(IOException err) { /* ignore */ }
}
Why do you want to avoid the additional block? Since the finally block contains "normal" operations which may throw an exception AND you want the finally block to run completely you HAVE to catch exceptions.
If you don't expect the finally block to throw an exception and you don't know how to handle the exception anyway (you would just dump stack trace) let the exception bubble up the call stack (remove the try-catch from the finally block).
If you want to reduce typing you could implement a "global" outer try-catch block, which will catch all exceptions thrown in finally blocks:
try {
try {
...
} catch (Exception ex) {
...
} finally {
...
}
try {
...
} catch (Exception ex) {
...
} finally {
...
}
try {
...
} catch (Exception ex) {
...
} finally {
...
}
} catch (Exception ex) {
...
}
After lots of consideration, I find the following code best:
MyResource resource = null;
try {
resource = new MyResource();
resource.doSomethingFancy();
resource.close();
resource = null;
} finally {
closeQuietly(resource)
}
void closeQuietly(MyResource a) {
if (a!=null)
try {
a.close();
} catch (Exception e) {
//ignore
}
}
That code guarantees following:
The resource is freed when the code finished
Exceptions thrown when closing the resource are not consumed without processing them.
The code does not try to close the resource twice, no unnecessary exception will be created.
If you can you should test to avoid the error condition to begin with.
try{...}
catch(NullArgumentException nae){...}
finally
{
//or if resource had some useful function that tells you its open use that
if (resource != null)
{
resource.Close();
resource = null;//just to be explicit about it was closed
}
}
Also you should probably only be catching exceptions that you can recover from, if you can't recover then let it propagate to the top level of your program. If you can't test for an error condition that you will have to surround your code with a try catch block like you already have done (although I would recommend still catching specific, expected errors).
You could refactor this into another method ...
public void RealDoSuff()
{
try
{ DoStuff(); }
catch
{ // resource.close failed or something really weird is going on
// like an OutOfMemoryException
}
}
private void DoStuff()
{
try
{}
catch
{
}
finally
{
if (resource != null)
{
resource.close();
}
}
}
I usually do this:
MyResource r = null;
try {
// use resource
} finally {
if( r != null ) try {
r.close();
} catch( ThatSpecificExceptionOnClose teoc ){}
}
Rationale: If I'm done with the resource and the only problem I have is closing it, there is not much I can do about it. It doesn't make sense either to kill the whole thread if I'm done with the resource anyway.
This is one of the cases when at least for me, it is safe to ignore that checked exception.
To this day I haven't had any problem using this idiom.
try {
final Resource resource = acquire();
try {
use(resource);
} finally {
resource.release();
}
} catch (ResourceException exx) {
... sensible code ...
}
Job done. No null tests. Single catch, include acquire and release exceptions. Of course you can use the Execute Around idiom and only have to write it once for each resource type.
Changing Resource from best answer to Closeable
Streams implements Closeable Thus you can reuse the method for all streams
protected void closeQuietly(Closeable resource) {
if (resource == null)
return;
try {
resource.close();
} catch (IOException e) {
//log the exception
}
}
I encountered a situation similar where I couldn't use try with resources but I also wanted to handle the exception coming from the close, not just log and ignore it like closeQuietly mechanism do. in my case I'm not actually dealing with an output stream, so the failure on close is of more interest than a simple stream.
IOException ioException = null;
try {
outputStream.write("Something");
outputStream.flush();
} catch (IOException e) {
throw new ExportException("Unable to write to response stream", e);
}
finally {
try {
outputStream.close();
} catch (IOException e) {
ioException = e;
}
}
if (ioException != null) {
throw new ExportException("Unable to close outputstream", ioException);
}