We Keep Coding

why spring handles only unchecked exceptions

I want to know why spring handles only unchecked exceptions..... can any one explain what is the reason behind this .
Spring is using any design patterns which will avoid checked exceptions ?

Spring is using any design patterns which will avoid checked
exceptions ?
Not a design pattern but Best Practices for Exception Handling.
Consider below code:
public void consumeAndForgetAllExceptions(){
try {
...some code that throws exceptions
} catch (Exception ex){
ex.printStacktrace();
}
}
What is wrong with the code above?
Once an exception is thrown, normal program execution is suspended and control is transferred to the catch block. The catch block catches the exception and just suppresses it. Execution of the program continues after the catch block, as if nothing had happened.
How about the following?
public void someMethod() throws Exception{
}
This method is a blank one; it does not have any code in it. How can a blank method throw exceptions? Java does not stop you from doing this.
I want to know why spring handles only unchecked exceptions?
Personally I prefer unchecked exceptions declared in the throws cause. I hate having to catch exceptions when I'm not interested in them. I agree the spec needs to a few more exception types, but I disagree that they should be checked. Most frameworks rely on unchecked exceptions, not only Spring framework.
Best Practices for Designing the API
If the client can take some alternate action to recover from the exception, make it a checked exception.
If the client cannot do anything useful, then make the exception unchecked. By useful, I mean taking steps to recover from the exception and not just logging the exception.
The Java API has many unchecked exceptions,
such as
NullPointerException, IllegalArgumentException, and IllegalStateException. I prefer working with standard exceptions provided in Java rather than creating my own. They make my code easy to understand and avoid increasing the memory footprint of code.
See Also:
Unchecked Exceptions
Best practices in exception handling

Spring's central theme is Dependency Injection and IOC. Checked exceptions add unncessary code and create more dependency. As such, the dependency costs of checked exceptions outweigh their benefits. They reduce the ability to test code. They lead to lower cohesion and higher coupling. The goal of your code should be high cohesion and low coupling. Spring is focused towards the S.O.L.I.D principles of design.

Handling exceptions in Java application

When I throw an exception from the package in which I handle the database, in the package in which I handle the UI, should I throw the same exception or create another?
The UI package should know the exceptions of the package which I handle the database?

We as programmers want to write quality code that solves problems. Unfortunately, exceptions come as side effects of our code. No one likes side effects, so we soon find our own ways to get around them. I have seen some smart programmers deal with exceptions the following way:
public void consumeAndForgetAllExceptions(){
try {
...some code that throws exceptions
} catch (Exception ex){
ex.printStacktrace();
}
}
What is wrong with the code above?
Once an exception is thrown, normal program execution is suspended and control is transferred to the catch block. The catch block catches the exception and just suppresses it. Execution of the program continues after the catch block, as if nothing had happened.
How about the following?
public void someMethod() throws Exception{
}
This method is a blank one; it does not have any code in it. How can a blank method throw exceptions? Java does not stop you from doing this. Recently, I came across similar code where the method was declared to throw exceptions, but there was no code that actually generated that exception. When I asked the programmer, he replied "I know, it is corrupting the API, but I am used to doing it and it works."
Please visit here for more details.

To keep your layers tightly coupled, I recommend to abstract your Exceptions (if there isn't a fitting standard exception). With abstract I mean that you could wrap database-dependent exceptions like SQLException into a PersistenceException or sth. like that. This way you can easily change your layers without having to worry about changing code of the layers above.
You should then only catch and handle the exception if you can handle them, e.g. propagate it to the user in you GUI. Otherwise you should throw them to the next caller, until it is handled on a higher level.
You should avoid recreating new exceptions on their way up, that wouldn't add any information in most cases.

You should throw an Exception that makes sense. More importantly you should not throw an exception that doesn't. Exceptions represent error states that you cannot easily recover from, meaning that if you have code to handle things like missing files, it should not throw an exception. You should only throw an exception when something unexpected happens.
As exceptions propagate up through your stack, they should be diversified, depending on what part of the code they where caught in.
For instance your persistence framework may throw an SqlException, your DAO Layer may re-throwthis as an IllegalArgumentExection, or ObjectNotFoundEception, your Service Layer may throw a MalformedRequestException, an AccessDeniedException or a DeviceNotEnrolledException. Lastly your UI may display this to the user in any number of meaningful ways.

I recommend putting the exceptions where it relates the most. You should have different exceptions that handle the code in different types of situations. The UI is going to have different types of exceptions it should handle than the database.
Use pre-defined exceptions where it makes sense, you could also make your own exceptions and put them in both packages if need be.
Design it so that the code can be handled in a way where the catch statement is easy to logically locate and the catch statement handles the code and can do some sort of recovery after being passed up the hierarchy.
The type of situation we are concerned with the most are checked exceptions. These are problems that we can anticipate and catch and try to make a recovery. Make sure you aren't using too many of these! They are costly to resources!

Why Would you catch Throwable and do nothing but print a stack trace?

I have tried looking for an answer to this on other threads, but so far I have only seen threads that state that catching Throwable is bad. My question is, is there ever a reason why you would WANT to do this and then do nothing in the catch block except print out the stack trace?
I was recently brought onto a project and given the task of cleaning up the error handling of an existing set of classes for a RESTful service. Several of the helper service classes have try/catch blocks that only catch Throwable and print out the stack trace, as shown below:
class MainService {
SubService1 s1;
SubService2 s2;
public doMainService() {
}
}
class SubService1 {
public int findSomething() {
try {
// Do Something
} catch (Throwable t) {
t.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
class SubService2 {
public int findSomethingElse() {
try {
// Do Something
} catch (Throwable t) {
t.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
Is there a case that this is acceptable? Would it be better for the methods to throw Exception and not have the try/catch blocks?

This is almost never a good practice for a variety of well known reasons.
In particular, it doesn't distinguish between checked and unchecked exceptions and errors. More importantly, one of the effects of this code is allowing the application to execute beyond the exception handler which may result in all kinds of strange behavior due to violated invariants. In other words, since the exception caught may be really anything including violated assertions, programming errors, thread interruptions, missing classes, I/O errors, OOM conditions and even library and VM bugs, the program state is practically unpredictable beyond the exception handler.
In some rare situations broad exception handling may make sense. Imagine a server handling multiple independent requests. You may not want to crash due to a problem encountered while serving one of the requests. Since you do not rely on the state left after the exception handler, you can simply print the stack trace and let someone investigate while the server continues serving other requests.
Even in these situations one should carefully consider whether errors, e.g. VirtualMachineError should really be caught.

One reason that I think people do this is just because Java forces you to either surround calls that throw with a try/catch block, or add throws to the method declaration.
If you "know" that you're not going to have an exception occur, then it's kind of a way to prevent it from going up the chain (cause if you do throws, who ever calls your code needs to surround with a try/catch and so on), but if something does occur it'll dump it without crashing.

You might do that if you don't know any other way to get the stack trace and you want to know how you got to your current location. Not a very good reason, but a possible one. This doesn't seem to fit what you're looking at though; you seem to have been given code which doesn't crash but also doesn't do a good job with error handling.

I use it to see exactly where my program is crashing. So basically just for debugging. Also just to see if it's flowing in the way expected.

It is possible that they wanted to see the stack trace without crashing the program.
For example it can be appropriate for code executed by a thread to log exceptions but otherwise do nothing when it is unacceptable for the thread to crash since the next iteration (say where threads are taking items from a queue) may work as expected. This depends on the use case, but for a server you generally want the threads to be bullet proof and log any errors, instead of halting any further processing (but use cases may vary).

Most simplest example we come across in your problem is when it comes to close an input stream.Follwoing is the method declaration in InputStream class.
public void close() throws IOException
Althoug there is a possiblity to throw an exception when we call this method it would be no harm for the program execution.(Since we will not use that InputStream further) In that case we should only log the error and continue the program. But if you find out an exception which change the states of an object and then you must think about recovery code or halt execution.

Never do this (e.printStackTrace()). many IDE's default to it, but its horrible (many apps run with stderr redirected in ways that are not accessible, and thus, never seen). rules of thumb:
if you truly don't care about the exception (never, ever, ever, ever will care), catch it and do nothing with a big comment which says "we really, really don't ever care if this exception gets thrown"
if you never expect an exception to actually be thrown (the interface defines a checked exception, but you know the impl doesn't actually throw it), rethrow the exception as something like new UnsupportedOperationException("this should never happen", t) (that way if/when the underlying impl gets changed you find out about it sooner rather than later)
if you expect that the exception is unlikely, and you usually will not care about it, log it with a proper logging infrastructure (log4j, commons logging, or java.util.logging). that way it will most likely make it somewhere that you can see later if you decide that you actually do care about the exception after all.

Java Exceptions, What to catch and what not to?

I keep getting the dreaded java.something.someException errors while running my java app. and I don't seem to be getting the hang of what exceptions to handle and what not to?
When I read the api docs most of the functions throw exceptions like if I use I/O or use an Array... etc.
How to make a decision about what exceptions to catch and what not to and based on what parameters?
I am talking about checked exceptions here.

Short answer
Catch exceptions that you can deal with then and there, re-throw what you can't.
Long answer
It's called exception-handling code for a reason: whenever you are tempted to write a catch block, you need to have a good reason to catch the exception in the first place. A catch block is stating your intent to catch the exception, and then do something about it. Examples of doing something about it include, but are not limited to:
Retrying the operation that threw the exception. This can make sense in the case of IOException's and other issues that may be temporary (i.e. a network error in the middle of trying to upload a file to a server. Maybe your code should retry the upload a few times).
Logging the exception. Yes, logging counts as doing something. You might also want to re-throw the original exception after logging it so that other code still has a chance to deal with the exception, but that depends on the situation.
Wrapping the exception in another exception that is more appropriate for your class's interface. For example, if you have a FileUploader class, you could wrap IOException's in a more generic UploadFailedException so that classes using your class don't have to have detailed knowledge of how your upload code works (the fact that it throws an IOException is technically an implementation detail).
If the code can't reasonably do anything about the problem at the point where it occurs, then you shouldn't catch it at all.
Unfortunately, such hard-and-fast rules never work 100% of the time. Sometimes, a third-party library you are using will throw checked exceptions that you really don't care about or which will never actually happen. In these cases, you can get away with using an empty catch block that doesn't run any code, but this is not a recommended way to deal with exceptions. At the very least, you should add a comment explaining why you are ignoring the exception (but as CPerkins notes in the comments, "never say never". You may want to actually log these kinds of "never-going-to-happen" exceptions, so just in case such an exception does happen, you are aware of it and can investigate further).
Still, the general rule is, if the method you are in can't do something reasonable with an exception (log it, rethrow it, retry the operation, etc.) then you shouldn't write a catch block at all. Let the calling method deal with the exception. If you are dealing with checked exceptions, add the checked exception to the throws clause of your method, which tells the compiler to pass the exception upwards to the calling method, which may be better suited to handle the error (the calling method may have more context, so it might have a better idea of how to handle the exception).
Usually, it is good to put a try...catch in your main method, which will catch any exceptions that your code couldn't deal with, and report this information to the user and exit the application gracefully.
And finally, don't forget about finally
Also keep in mind that even if you don't write a catch block, you might still need to write a finally block, if you need clean-up code to run regardless of whether the operation you are trying to perform throws an exception or not. A common example is opening up a file in the try block: you'll still want to close the file, even if an exception occurs, and even if your method isn't going to catch the exception. In fact, another common rule of thumb that you might see in tutorials and books is that try...finally blocks should be more common that try...catch blocks in your code, precisely because catch blocks should only be written when you can actually handle the exception, but finally blocks are needed whenever your code needs to clean up after itself.

I highly recommend chapter 9 (Exceptions) in Joshua Bloch's Effective Java, 2nd Edition for these questions.

A general rule of thumb is to handle those exceptions that you can do something about and don't handle those that you can't. In the cases where you don't handle an exception the caller is expected to handle them. If you're writing a framework or a library usually you'll end up wrapping low level exceptions like SQLException in a library or framework specific exception to abstract away the lower level details.
For example, if you're writing a method that writes to a file on disk then you should probably handle FileNotFoundExceptions since you can create the missing file, but if you run into problems creating the file or writing to it then you should probably let the caller handle it (after performing whatever cleanup work needs to be done).

These are my personal findings:
You need a try {} catch (Throwable o) {...} in your main routine so any unexpected exception can be caught, logged and the user told.
Checked exceptions are checked because you need as a programmer to make a decision what to do when they happen. Remember, one decision might be just to say "ok, time to crash".
If you end up with a fatal situation with a checked exception where all you can do is crash, then "throw new RuntimeException("reason", checkedException);" so the handler above have something to log. Include value of important local variables - remember some day you will have to debug a situation where the only thing you have is the stack trace.
Never, ever catch an exception and just ignore it. If you have to then you must document why you are allowed to break the rule, and do it right there, in the catch block.
And a hint that will help you some day: When you crash, provide a simple means to let the user seeing the message email the stack trace to you.
EDIT: Do not be afraid to create new exceptions if the ones available does not completely cover what you need. This allows you to get better naming in stack traces and your error handling code can differentiate between different cases easily. You may want to base all your own exceptions on a common base class ("OurDomainException") so you can use the base class in catch clauses to see if what type it is.

Having coded in Java for a few years, I agree that it is easy to get annoyed by writing endless try-catch blocks.
A good way of coding fast is to catch specific exceptions in as low level as you can, and catch the base Exception at the outermost level (in main()) just so that you can write a generic error message instead of letting the program crash.
This lets you have a running code pretty fast, and then you can take your time to add specific exceptions in various layers with their handling logic.

Catch checked Exception, do not catch RuntimeException. Try to catch specific Exception, try not to catch by generic java.lang.Exception.

Module boundaries
I catch exceptions for cleaner module boundaries, too. For example if there is a SQLException thrown that I can't handle I'll catch it nevertheless and throw my own descriptive exception instead (putting the SQLException as cause). This way the caller doesn't have to know that I'm using a database to fulfill his request. He just gets an error "Cannot handle this specific use case". If I decide to fulfill his request without database access, I don't have to change my API.

As a rule of thumb I catch exceptions where I will be able to do something with then, or where I want the exception to stop moving up. For example, if I am processing a list of items, and I want the next item to be processed even if the others fail, then I will put a try...catch block around that item processing and only in there. I usually put a try...catch(Throwable) in the main method of my program so I can log errors like a class not found or similar stuff.
I don't put a try...catch block in a method if I will not know what to do with that exception. If you do, you will just bloat your code with lots of exception handling code.

Why does Java have both checked and unchecked exceptions? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 13 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
When to choose checked and unchecked exceptions
Why does Java as a language have both checked and unchecked exceptions. What purpose do they serve?
Note: I'm not asking when I should use them, or how to code them, but what they add to the language.

The theory for checked exceptions is simple.
When designing an interface, think of exceptional cases that can occur, and will occur, with the normal state of a method call. Declare these exceptions in your interface, as the programmer will have to handle them directly.
For example, a bank account withdraw method may declare an OverdraftException, which is an expected exception - a withdrawal may fail due to overdraft, but this type of failure may be handled differently by the client code (one may decide to completely deny the withdrawal, another may decide to apply a huge penalty and allow for a negative balance to be recorded, another may decide that their client is allowed to draw from a different account).
However, runtime exceptions were supposed to be programming errors that weren't supposed to be handled directly - such as NullPointerExceptions, which only occur if methods take invalid arguments or don't check for such cases directly.
This is a good theory. However, Java messed up with its implementation of Exceptions, and this threw the book of this theory out the window.
There are two cases that I will illustrate where Java messed up with its implementation of Exceptions. These are IOException and SQLException.
An IOException occurs anytime, anywhere a stream in the IO libraries of Java messes up. This is a checked exception, however. But, generally you cannot do anything but log that an error occur - if you're simply writing to the console, what can you reasonably be expected to do if you suddenly get an IOException when you're writing to it?
But there's more.
IOException also hides stuff like file exceptions and network exceptions. They may be subclasses of IOException floating around for that, but it is still a checked exception. If your writing to an external file fails, you can't really do much about it - if your network connection is severed, ditto.
SQLException is the same way. Exception names should show what happened when they are called. SQLException does not. SQLException is thrown any single time any possible number of errors are encountered when dealing with a database - MOST OF WHICH THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH SQL.
Therefore, programmers typically get annoyed with handling exceptions, and let Eclipse (or whatever IDE they're using) generate blocks like this:
try {
thisMethodThrowsACheckedExceptionButIDontCare();
}
catch(Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
However, with RuntimeExceptions, these intentionally bubble up and eventually get handled by the JVM or container level. This is a good thing - it forces errors to show up and then you must fix the code directly instead of ignoring the exception - you may still end up just printing the stack trace (hopefully logging it instead of printing to the console directly), but then there will be an exception handler that you were forced to write because of a real problem - not because a method said that it might possibly throw an Exception, but that it did.
Spring uses a DataAccessException to wrap SQLExceptions so that you don't have to handle them as a checked exception. It makes code much cleaner as a result - if you expect a DataAccessException, you can handle it - but most of the time you let it propagate and be logged as an error, because your SQL should be debugged by the time you release your application, meaning the DataAccessException is probably a hardware issue that you could not resolve - DataAccessException is a much more meaningful name than SQLException, because it shows that access to data failed - not that your SQL query was nessecarily at fault.

They add a differentiation between errors that the designer of a library feels must be caught, and ones that they feel the programmer shouldn't handle.
For example it might be reasonable for a program to handle bad input from a user, but if something goes wrong with the underlying OS and threads starts to die without reason, it isn't something that the program should be expected to handle.

Personally, I think checked exceptions were a mistake in Java.
That aside, designating both checked and unchecked exceptions allows a library to differentiate between recoverable and unrecoverable errors. By making all recoverable errors throw checked exceptions, a library/language can force a developer to handle the edge cases they might otherwise paper over.
The big problem with this:
try{
myCode();
}catch(Exception e){ //Do nothing }
Additionally, in most cases it really is best to just throw up your hands and pass an exception up when one occurs. By forcing checked exceptions to be declared, a method that really doesn't care if an error occurs ends up having dependencies (in terms of compatibility, but also code-smell and others) it really shouldn't.

I think Sun initially thought it would be a good idea because the programmer is forced to handle the exception. However, many years later, pretty much everyone agrees they are a bad, unneccessary addition.
One of the main issues (apart from cluttering code) is that they leak abstractions form lower layers to higher layers (such as rmi remote exceptions)

Checked and unchecked exceptions invokes a bit of a religious argument - Java fell one side of the fence, C# the other.
In Java checked exceptions should be used when the calling code can recover from the error as where unchecked exceptions are used when there's a critical error (with perhaps the exception - no pun intended - of NullPointerException) that the calling code is unlikely to be able to recover from.
Personally I like to have both available to me generally favouring checked exceptions because they allow me to force the calling code to deal with an error situation that a developer might otherwise have ignored (although the infamous empty catch block side-steps this).

I don't think there's anything at all conceptually wrong with checked exceptions... but they do tend to suck mightilly in practice, because (especially early) library developers over-use them.
Also the "catch or declare" requirement does NOT fit well with interfaces.
My basics thoughts are: "Stuff that goes wrong" comes in two basic flavours: recoverable, and unrecoverable... Ergo: Business Exceptions and System Errors.
For instance: What do you (the library developer) expect me (the application programmer) to do about recovering from a failure in a call to SomeStream.close()? Yes, I definately need to be made aware that something has gone horribly wrong, but really my only option is to terminate the program/request/process/thread which tripped over it. I cannot be reasonably expected to even attempt to recover from the situation... Ergo: It's an uncoverable error, and therefore I shouldn't be forced to write a lot of highly repitious boilerplate catch-blocks which don't handle the problem at every level of the (potentially very deep) callstack. Therefore I believe it would be better if "catch all" checked exceptions such as IOException had never been invented... CloseException extends UncheckedIOException would be more appropriate, IMHO.
Also, if I had a time machine I'd go back in time and plead with the Java gods for:
interface Throwable
abstract class Exception
abstract class CheckedException
abstract class UncheckedException
class Error
Also: I'd love to see a #FaultBarrier class-annotation, which makes the compiler enforce: All exceptions (especially unchecked ones) must be caught or explicitly thrown. The most horribilest hunk of system I've ever worked on was riddled with throwings of raw RuntimeException; It's enough to make you weep.
Cheers. Keith.