We need to have two functions. They do the same thing but one handles the exceptions and one throws the exception. Note: If to handle exception, the exception has to be handled in the commonFunc() below. It would not work to handle the exception in functionHandlesEx() because to handle the function it needs the variable only available in commonFunc(). In order to re-use code, we got the following. Do you see any problem with it (I can see one problem is: the function throws exception but actually no exception is thrown when isExceptionHandled is true----but Java allows this)? Any better way to do this? We are in Java 6. Thanks.
public void functionThrowsEx() throws Exception e
{
commonFunc(false); //false means does not handle exception
}
public void functionHandlesEx()
{
try
{
commonFunc(true); //true means handle exception
}
catch (Exception e)
{
// do nothing as exception handled
}
}
private void commonFunc(final boolean isExceptionHandled) throws Exception
{
try
{
....
}
catch (Exception e)
{
if (isExceptionHandled)
{
//handle the exception
}
else
{
throw e;
}
}
}
This seems like an overly complicated approach to handling the exception. I understand its toy code to show what you are doing, but I haven't encountered many reasons to create nested calls in order to handle exceptions.
Ideally, the code that can cause the exception should have the means to handle the exception in it, using try...catch, and maybe finally. This logical flow looks like it would be pretty complex in a non-trivial application, and would lead to increased complexity and difficulty in debugging.
You should get rid of the two functions, and avoid nesting try/catch blocks. If you must nest them, make it has straigtfoward as possible by keeping the logic in the same method.
From the code, I'm guessing you want to handle the exception differently based on the state of the program. This code is too complex, and will be difficult to understand for a non trivial app. A better way would be to keep functionHandlesEx and put the exception recovery logic in the handler function.
public void functionHandlesEx() {
try {
//logic here;
}
}
catch (Exception e) {
if(iWantToHandleException) {
//handle exception
}
//do nothing otherwise. Use the finally block for anything else they have in common.
}
}
This is much simpler to understand, and it shouldn't be too hard to refactor it into this form.
Related
Recently, I met some exception problem in java, which reminded me of the typical idiom recommended by Bruce Eckel:
Converting checked to unchecked exceptions
The real problem is when you are writing an ordinary method body, and you call another method and realize, "I have no idea what to do with this exception here, but I don’t want to swallow it or print some banal message." With chained exceptions, a new and simple solution prevents itself. You simply "wrap" a checked exception inside a RuntimeException by passing it to the RuntimeException constructor, like this:
try {
// ... to do something useful
} catch (IDontKnowWhatToDoWithThisCheckedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
This seems to be an ideal solution if you want to "turn off the checked exception—you don’t swallow it, and you don’t have to put it in your method’s exception specification, but because of exception chaining you don’t lose any information from the original exception.
This technique provides the option to ignore the exception and let it bubble up the call stack without being required to write try-catch clauses and/or exception specifications.
However, I found it didn't work in some cases. as seen here:
package exceptions;
// How an exception can be lost
class VeryImportantException extends Exception {
#Override
public String toString() {
return "A very important exception";
}
}
class HoHumException extends Exception {
#Override
public String toString() {
return "A trivial exception";
}
}
public class LostMessage {
void f() throws VeryImportantException {
throw new VeryImportantException();
}
void dispose() throws HoHumException {
throw new HoHumException();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
try {
LostMessage lm = new LostMessage();
try {
lm.f();
} catch (VeryImportantException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
} finally {
lm.dispose();
}
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
}/* Output:
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.RuntimeException: A trivial exception
at exceptions.LostMessage.main(LostMessage.java:36)
Caused by: A trivial exception
at exceptions.LostMessage.dispose(LostMessage.java:23)
at exceptions.LostMessage.main(LostMessage.java:33)
*///:~
As the output demonstrated， the second exception completely obliterates the first one. There is no record of the first exception in the exception stack trace, which can greatly complicate debugging in real systems. usually, it’s the first exception that you want to see in order to diagnose the problem.
Joshua Bloch recommends the try-with-resource way that a resource must implement the AutoCloseable interface, which process is somewhat complex.
So, my question is this: is there any way I can use to make sure that exception will not lose its stack trace information by Bruce Eckel's approach?
You might want to consider using try-with-resource instead of a finally block. It tends to handle this situation more like it sounds you would want the situation handled. See this article for more details.
Alternatively, you could simply eat the exception (as Andy Thomas's answer shows), or (if you want to know about both exceptions that were thrown) you could combine the exceptions into a single kind of Aggregate Exception.
The problem isn't that you're wrapping the exception. The problem is that you're replacing it with a subsequent, unrelated exception thrown from the finally block.
One easy way to avoid this is to not throw an exception from the finally block.
For example:
try {
LostMessage lm = new LostMessage();
try {
lm.f();
} catch (VeryImportantException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
} finally {
try {
lm.dispose();
} catch ( HoHumException e ) {
// No-op or logging
//
// If we're exiting this try-finally because an exception
// was thrown, then don't allow this new exception to replace it.
}
}
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
I have a method which under certain conditions may throw an exception, but most of the time will not. I would like to require anyone who calls this method to catch the exception if they call it under the "dangerous" conditions, but not have to worry about it under "safe" conditions.
public static boolean dangerousSituation; // set somewhere else
public sometimesDangerousMethod() throws MyException {
// some code
// may throw MyException if dangerousSituation == true
// will never throw MyException if dangerousSituation == false
}
otherMethod() {
dangerousSituation = false;
sometimesDangerousMethod(); // shouldn't have to worry about MyException
// if it can't possibly happen
dangerousSituation = true;
try {
sometimesDangerousMethod(); // should be required to handle
// MyException if it may possibly happen
} catch(MyException e) {
// handle MyException
}
}
That is, I would like to require a try/catch block around sometimesDangerousMethod() if and only if dangerousSituation == true.
The reason I want this is because I don't want to bother developers with exception handling if they stick to safe situations anyway. But of course, if a developer does use a dangerous situation, the compiler should let him know.
Is there some way to get this behavior in Java?
I have considered breaking up sometimesDangerousMethod() into two methods: one dangerous, one safe. But I don't think this makes sense since this would require developers to be aware of two methods which do basically the same thing.
The functionality you're looking for doesn't exist. You can either split it into two methods, or your coworkers will have to use a try-catch. Sorry, but sometimes the answer is just "No".
#mypetlion is accurate on the most part.
There are a couple of other options for you to consider is:
Would it be possible to handle the exception inside of sometimesDangerousMethod() instead of otherMethod()? If so, then you could pass in the logging/metric object to the method, try/catch inside of the method, and log an error message or update a metric when this occurs. This way, you don't have to worry about try/catch in the case that the exception doesn't occur.
You could break it up into 2 methods like #mypetlion mentioned and with a bit of organization, it may be good enough code:
`
public class Solution {
public static boolean dangerousSituation; // set somewhere else
public void notDangerousMethod(){
// will never throw MyException
}
public void dangerousMethod() throws MyException {
// throws MyException
}
public void sometimesDangerousMethod() throws MyException {
if(dangerousSituation){
dangerousMethod();
} else {
notDangerousMethod();
}
}
public void otherMethod() {
dangerousSituation = false;
// Option 1:
if(dangerousSituation){
try{
dangerousMethod();
} catch(MyException e) {
// handle MyException
}
} else {
notDangerousMethod();
}
// Option 2:
try {
sometimesDangerousMethod(); // should be required to handle
// MyException if it may possibly happen
} catch(MyException e) {
// handle MyException
}
}
`
Depending on contents of sometimesDangerousMethod(), this may be overkill. If it is a few very simple lines of logic, it might be worth it to implement your original design. I don't think the developers would mind :)
You're missing the point of the word Exception. Your code should not throw an Exception unless there is an exceptional situation. Properly designed code that consumes your code still needs to handle the possibility of an exceptional situation.
You shouldn't worry so much about the users of your method having to worry about exceptions.
If your method can fail for whatever reason, it should declare the exception (or use an unchecked exception) and throw the exception if it really fails. That's exactly what exceptions are for.
So I think dangerousSituation is in fact a very dangerous flag. In the code you propose, setting the flag translates to "do not tell me if the method fails [because I know better than the method's implementation that there will not be a failure]".
So, the only reason for not throwing can be a method that will surely succeed. And any decent Java developer should know how to handle exceptions (typically by letting them pass through to a top level where all exceptions are caught and logged).
We all write from time to time code like this:
try {
// ... some code.
} catch (SomeException e) {
// ... No action is required, just ignore.
}
Is there any standard code fragment like annotation to show we really intend to ignore exception? Something that shows to other team members and static analyzers we really need to skip this situation like InterruptedException after Thread.sleep()? Something like:
Exception.ignore(e);
Googled around but have not found something standard for such case.
This is especially relevant to tests that assure exceptions:
try {
action();
fail("We expected this to fail.");
} catch (ExpectedException e) {
ignore(e, "OK, so far so good.");
}
The only way to ignore an exception is to catch & swallow it, being very specific on the exception of course, you wouldn't want to catch Exception e, that would be a very bad idea.
try{
... //code
}
catch( VerySpecificException ignore){
Log(ignore);
}
Logging is obviously optional but a good practice.
in order to keep the code up with your exception handling or ignoring, it's nice to name the exception var as ignored:
try {
action();
} catch (ExpectedException ignored ) {}
Concerning your update referring to testing, if you use a testing framework, you can annotate the test in such a way that an exception is expected, e.g. using TestNG
#Test(expectedExceptions = ClassNotFoundException.class)
public void testSomething() {
// will succeed if a ClassNotFoundException is thrown
}
I have a very basic question about best practice of using try/catch.
I have a simple function (DAO) like this:
public void addVehicle(Vehicle vehicle) {
em.getTransaction().begin();
em.persist(vehicle);
em.getTransaction().commit();
}
and using DAO function inside web service:
#WebMethod(operationName = "addVehicle")
public void addVehicle(Vehicle vehicle) {
try {
vehicleDAO.addVehicle(vehicle);
System.out.print("Vehicle added");
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
OR is better using try/catch inside DAO function like this:
public void addVehicle(Vehicle vehicle) {
try {
em.getTransaction().begin();
em.persist(vehicle);
em.getTransaction().commit();
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
There is no perfect rule for that.
Often code is clearer and less complex if exceptions are catched as early as needed, but as late as possible.
You should think who has to take an action when that Exception happens, this decides if you catch it inside the method (addVehicle) or if you throw it such that the caller has to catch it.
E.g:
public void addVehicle(Vehicle vehicle) throws SQLException{
em.getTransaction().begin();
em.persist(vehicle);
em.getTransaction().commit();
}
In this example the caller has to catch.
Further only in few situations you should catch Exception or RunTimeException, better
catch that specific Exception, like IOException instead of Exception.
Somewhere in your code you will need a "last line of defense" where it make sense to catch (Exception ex). This is needed to handle errors that should not happen.
When deciding where to handle a specific kind of exception, the best rule of thumb is to stop looking at the micro details of your code, take a step back to reason about your program's logic and consider these things:
Is the exception something that your program's current operation cannot recover from? If yes, it only makes sense to put the exception at the topmost level of that operation, to ensure that it doesn't continue.
If your program can work around that particular exception (perhaps by trying something else before giving up), take each layer of nested functions (starting from the highest) and each time ask yourself: If the exception occurs during the execution of some line of code in this function, would it make sense for this function to continue? As long as the answer is "yes", move to the deeper level. As soon the answer is "no", chances are this is the best place to put the handler for that exception.
Alternatively to the previous one, you could decide what would your program's alternate "plan of attack" be in case the exception is raised. Then, go to the line of code that would raise that exception and ask yourself: Does this function have enough context information to perform the workaround I have in mind? As long as the answer is "no", move to the caller function. As soon as the answer becomes "yes", consider putting your exception handler there.
That being said, you should only catch reasonably specialized exceptions and keep the catch(Exception ex) construct only as a last resort only at the top level and only after all the other possible catch blocks, reserving it only for kinds of exceptions you really couldn't predict at the time of writing. (I know you said this is not the point of the example, but since we're at it, I thought it should be mentioned to make this answer more complete.)
You should only catch those exceptions which you want to handle. You may include a topmost exception handler to turn any unhandled exceptions into something somewhat useful for the end user.
Instead of e.printStackTrace();, try return proper exception message.
find out more about exception handling here
Here is more discussion about exception handling.
AFAIK the best practice will be smth like that:
public void addVehicle(Vehicle vehicle) {
em.getTransaction().begin();
try {
em.persist(vehicle);
em.getTransaction().commit();
} catch (Exception e) {
if (em.getTransaction().isActive()) {
try {
em.getTransaction().rollback();
} catch (Exception e) {
// Log rollback failure or something
}
}
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
Use both, the only reason is to use catch RuntimeException or even Throwable. Because this kind of exception is typically thrown by the underlying frameworks. An you should catch exactly this kind of exception if you want to make some actions, for example logging, print stack trace, etc., before you re-throw it again. If you don't do in such way you may loose the cause of exception.
#Transactional
public void addVehicle(Vehicle vehicle) {
try {
//do whatever with session
} catch (RuntimeException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
throw new Exception(e);
}
}
I am currently working on the maintenance of a piece of code that is a little bit "Exception Happy." Basically, ever method or anything throws Exception. I'm going to work to take care of that, but, in the meantime, I am wondering what is the best way to handle individual exceptions within a smaller block of code, such as a method. Is it better to do something like this:
public void aMethod()
try {
//Lots of code in here. Many lines.
} catch(Exception e) {
// TODO - Handle All Exceptions, but fairly generically
}
}
Or something like this:
public void bMethod() {
try {
// One line of code.
} catch(Exception e) {
// TODO - Handle a specific Exception (may even involve rethrowing it with more information)
}
// More code.
try {
// Another line of code.
} catch(Exception e) {
// TODO - Handle another specific exception.
}
}
I realize this is a pretty basic question, but after looking at hundreds of methods with Exceptions coming out of every one, I'm starting to wonder how best to handle all of them and what a best practice may be here.
First off, you should only put code in try/catch blocks that is exception worthy. For instance, having an unexpected value is not necessarily an exception, but trying to read from a file that doesn't exist is.
To answer your main question, you should put the exceptionable code in the same try {} block and catch specific questions in order of granularity in multiple catch blocks after the main try.
//Regular code that doesn't need to be covered by a try/catch block
try {
//critical code only
} catch (NullPointerException npe) {
//Code
} catch (RandomException re) {
//code
} catch (Exception e) {
//code
}
The answer to your question is: it depends.
if the code in the try block is coherent where it makes no sense to proceed in the event of an error, the first approach is best
if the code is taking seperate steps that are relatively unrelated (parsing numbers for instance) and can be recovered without aborting the rest of the method the seconds appraoch makes sense
A general remark on the code you inherited; it sounds like exceptions are abused to pass state around, I would refactor so that exceptions are caught at the spot where they can be handled and introduce return values or attributes to handle the state.
your bMethod isn't very useful illustration. Try to reprase it. Anyway, you have two options:
catch exceptions and log them.
catch exceptions and throw new RuntimeException(ex) (rethrow a runtime exception, setting the original as a cause)
Also, you will need to differentiate between exceptions. If your system has many custom exceptions, they are probably defined for a reason, and specific behaviour is expected when one of them is thrown.
If the try/catch block isn't adding useful information, just allow the method to throw the exception and have it handled where the caller can sensibly do something with the exception. This could cut down the number of try/catch significantly (by an order of magnitude).
BTW a trick for rethrowing any exception is.
try {
// do something
} catch (Throwable t) {
Thread.currentThread().stop(t); // rethrow any exception.
}
In addition to the suggestions already made you may also want to consider extracting try/catch blocks from the "meat" of the function.
public void delete(Page page) {
try {
deletePageAndAllReferences(page);
}
catch (Exception e) {
logError(e);
}
}
private void deletePageAndAllReferences(Page page) throws Exception {
deletePage(page);
registry.deleteReference(page.name);
configKeys.deleteKey(page.name.makeKey());
}
private void logError(Exception e) {
logger.log(e.getMessage());
}
This lets you focus your attention on the function you are really interested in without the exception handling getting in your way.