A method I am calling in run() in a class that implements Runnable) is designed to be throwing an exception.
But the Java compiler won't let me do that and suggests that I surround it with try/catch.
The problem is that by surrounding it with a try/catch I make that particular run() useless. I do want to throw that exception.
If I specify throws for run() itself, the compiler complains that Exception is not compatible with throws clause in Runnable.run().
Ordinarily I'm totally fine with not letting run() throw an exception. But I have unique situation in which I must have that functionality.
How to I work around this limitation?
You can use a Callable instead, submitting it to an ExecutorService and waiting for result with FutureTask.isDone() returned by the ExecutorService.submit().
When isDone() returns true you call FutureTask.get(). Now, if your Callable has thrown an Exception then FutureTask.get() wiill throw an Exception too and the original Exception you will be able to access using Exception.getCause().
If you want to pass a class that implements Runnable into the Thread framework, then you have to play by that framework's rules, see Ernest Friedman-Hill's answer why doing it otherwise is a bad idea.
I have a hunch, though, that you want to call run method directly in your code, so your calling code can process the exception.
The answer to this problem is easy. Do not use Runnable interface from Thread library, but instead create your own interface with the modified signature that allows checked exception to be thrown, e.g.
public interface MyRunnable
{
void myRun ( ) throws MyException;
}
You may even create an adapter that converts this interface to real Runnable ( by handling checked exception ) suitable for use in Thread framework.
If run() threw a checked exception, what would catch it? There's no way for you to enclose that run() call in a handler, since you don't write the code that invokes it.
You can catch your checked exception in the run() method, and throw an unchekced exception (i.e., RuntimeException) in its place. This will terminate the thread with a stack trace; perhaps that's what you're after.
If instead you want your run() method to report the error somewhere, then you can just provide a callback method for the run() method's catch block to call; that method could store the exception object somewhere, and then your interested thread could find the object in that location.
Yes, there is a way to throw a checked exception from the run() method, but it's so terrible I won't share it.
Here's what you can do instead; it uses the same mechanism that a runtime exception would exercise:
#Override
public void run() {
try {
/* Do your thing. */
...
} catch (Exception ex) {
Thread t = Thread.currentThread();
t.getUncaughtExceptionHandler().uncaughtException(t, ex);
}
}
As others have noted, if your run() method is really the target of a Thread, there's no point in throwing an exception because it is unobservable; throwing an exception has the same effect as not throwing an exception (none).
If it's not a Thread target, don't use Runnable. For example, perhaps Callable is a better fit.
#FunctionalInterface
public interface CheckedRunnable<E extends Exception> extends Runnable {
#Override
default void run() throws RuntimeException {
try {
runThrows();
}
catch (Exception ex) {
throw new RuntimeException(ex);
}
}
void runThrows() throws E;
}
Some people try to convince you that you have to play by the rules. Listen, but whether you obey, you should decide yourself depending on your situation. The reality is "you SHOULD play by the rules" (not "you MUST play by the rules"). Just be aware that if you do not play by the rules, there might be consequences.
The situation not only applies in the situation of Runnable, but with Java 8 also very frequently in the context of Streams and other places where functional interfaces have been introduced without the possibility to deal with checked exceptions. For example, Consumer, Supplier, Function, BiFunction and so on have all been declared without facilities to deal with checked exceptions.
So what are the situations and options?
In the below text, Runnable is representative of any functional interface that doesn't declare exceptions, or declares exceptions too limited for the use case at hand.
You've declared Runnable somewhere yourself, and could replace Runnable with something else.
Consider replacing Runnable with Callable<Void>. Basically the same thing, but allowed to throw exceptions; and has to return null in the end, which is a mild annoyance.
Consider replacing Runnable with your own custom #FunctionalInterface that can throw exactly those exceptions that you want.
You've used an API, and alternatives are available. For example, some Java APIs are overloaded so you could use Callable<Void> instead of Runnable.
You've used an API, and there are no alternatives. In that case, you're still not out of options.
You can wrap the exception in RuntimeException.
You can hack the exception into a RuntimeException by using an unchecked cast.
You can try the following. It's a bit of a hack, but sometimes a hack is what we need. Because, whether an exception should be checked or unchecked is defined by its type, but practically should actually be defined by the situation.
#FunctionalInterface
public interface ThrowingRunnable extends Runnable {
#Override
default void run() {
try {
tryRun();
} catch (final Throwable t) {
throwUnchecked(t);
}
}
private static <E extends RuntimeException> void throwUnchecked(Throwable t) {
throw (E) t;
}
void tryRun() throws Throwable;
}
I prefer this over new RuntimeException(t) because it has a shorter stack trace.
You can now do:
executorService.submit((ThrowingRunnable) () -> {throw new Exception()});
Disclaimer: The ability to perform unchecked casts in this way might actually be removed in future versions of Java, when generics type information is processed not only at compile time, but also at runtime.
Your requirement doesn't make any sense. If you want to notify the called of the thread about an exception that happened, you could do that through a call back mechanism. This can be through a Handler or a broadcast or whatever else you can think of.
I think a listener pattern might help you with this scenario. In case of an exception happening in your run() method, use a try-catch block and in the catch send a notification of an exception event. And then handle your notification event. I think this would be a cleaner approach. This SO link gives you a helpful pointer to that direction.
Yes, you can throw checked exceptions from the run() method. It can be done with generics by tricking the compiler. Look at this code:
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Main().throwException();
}
public void throwException() {
Runnable runnable = () -> throwAs(new Exception());
new Thread(runnable).start();
}
private <T extends Throwable> void throwAs(Throwable t) throws T {
throw ( T ) t;
}
This might be helpful if you want to throw checked exceptions from the run() method of Runnable
The easiest way is to define your own exception object which extend the RuntimeException class instead of the Exception class.
Related
I am writing a program that consumes some data from a RabbitMQ API, via the java.function.Consumer functional interface. In my subclass that implements this interface, I have 3 potential exceptions:
public interface MyMessageHandler extends Consumer<MyMessage> {}
public class SpecificMessageHandler implements MyMessageHandler {
#Override
public void accept(IncomingMessage incomingMessage) {
if(incomingMessage.getTime() < 1000) {
throw new InvalidTimeException("message"); //Custom exception extends RuntimeException
}
if(incomingMessageAlreadyExists) {
throw new DuplicateMessageException("message"); //Custom exception extends RuntimeException
}
try {
ObjectMapper.reader.readValue(incomingMessage.getJson()) // Throws IOEXception
} catch(IOException e) {
throw new CustomIOException("message"); //Custom exceptin extends RuntimeException
}
// If all is well, carry on with rest of function
}
}
I am having to take this route because you can't seem to throw regular exceptions in a functional interface, it has to be a runtime exception.
I am throwing the exceptions at this level of the stack, as I want to implement the actual handling behaviour higher up the stack, due to the fact I will have many message handlers that will be handled in the same way, therefore it's easier to implement that handling behaviour once higher up, rather than in every single handler class.
This functionally works, however feels like bad design. Is there a more elegant way to implement this? Note, I can't switch from a functional interface to something else, as i'm working with legacy code (not ideal, but that's how the world is some times!)
I am having to take this route because you can't seem to throw regular
exceptions in a functional interface, it has to be a runtime
exception.
This is incorrect. You can't throw checked exceptions in a java.function.Consumer specifically, because its signature
void accept(T t);
doesn't declare any.
The following functional interface is perfectly acceptable, and can throw certain checked exceptions.
public interface MyMessageHandler {
void accept(IncomingMessage incomingMessage) throws IOException;
}
MyMessageHandler handler = (msg) -> {
throw new IOException(); // Valid
};
If you wanted something more generic, you could declare something like
public interface ThrowableConsumer<T> {
void accept(T t) throws Exception;
}
interface MyMessageHandler extends ThrowableConsumer<MyMessage> {}
I am throwing the exceptions at this level of the stack, as I want to
implement the actual handling behaviour higher up the stack
You could use Lombok's #SneakyThrows to effectively convert a checked exception into an unchecked one. A hack, but it works.
class SpecificMessageHandler implements MyMessageHandler {
#Override
#SneakyThrows
public void accept(IncomingMessage incomingMessage) {
// Doesn't matter that it's checked and j.f.Consumer doesn't declare it
throw new IOException();
}
}
However I highly doubt that your employer will allow you to do hacks like this if you're not permitted to change an interface.
This functionally works, however feels like bad design
Why? There's a huge class of people who believe that checked exceptions were a mistake to begin with. There's nothing wrong with runtime exceptions.
Note, I can't switch from a functional interface to something else, as
i'm working with legacy code
People throw this word around a lot. Java 8 came out 8 years ago. Your code can't be that old. Usually when people say "I can't change X", what they mean is that they don't feel comfortable changing it, for whatever reason. If you're living in fear of your software, find a way to change that.
This is a plain Java 8+ question, no frameworks used.
We are producing an API for a higher layer which deals with the presentation layer among other activities. We have and interface agreed with the invoker, so they are happy to receive some particular exceptions we throw.
At the same time, we are also using other APIs under the same agreement, so we can do stuff by ourselves and throw exceptions or we can invoke other APIs which throw the agreed exceptions.
Currently, we do nothing with the exceptions thrown by the APIs we are invoking.
Thing is, we are the best positioned in this infrastructure to deal with intermediate activities while exceptions are thrown, so we need to capture both, our exceptions and the exceptions provided by those we are invoking; basically reporting the issue, raising system controls, etc, and then re-throw the original exception so the top layer keeps as it is now.
We have around 300 methods in the entry point class of our API:
public void method1 (arguments for method 1) {
...
}
...
public void method300 (arguments for method 300) {
...
}
I clearly understand that I can create a method to centralise the actions to be taken in the exception management, something like:
public void myExceptionHandler (Exception e) {
if (e instanceOf X) {
} else if ...
...
throw particularExceptionAccordingTheCase
}
But I'd also avoid modifying those 300 methods.
Any idea how to inject a try-catch in those 300 methods to send the Exception to myExceptionHandler without really adding a try-catch in each of them?
Any comments and ideas are much appreciated!
----------- After mprev0 suggestion -------------------------------
I tried this approach. It really catches the exception and so on, but I can't re-trow an Exception: I'm forced to catch it, but this goes against the requirement of re-sending the exception back to the top layer.
While I can throw an Error, I got a compiler error at line throw new FileNotFoundException();
public class myExceptionHandler implements Thread.UncaughtExceptionHandler {
#Override
public void uncaughtException(Thread t, Throwable e) {
System.out.println("gotcha!");
if (e instanceof java.lang.Error) {
System.out.println("AAT-CORE: Fatal Error");
throw new java.lang.Error(e.getCause());
} else if (e instanceof java.lang.Exception) {
System.out.println("AAT-CORE: Exception Error");
throw new FileNotFoundException();
}
}
}
Any ideas?
------------ After some more digging, fixed with a decorator pattern -------
Previous class implementation does not work, as I can't change the signature of the method and I need to re-throw the java.lang.Exception.
Using a decorator and handling the interface there makes the trick.
As a summary:
Top layer class:
public class TopLayer {
public static void main (String[] args) {
MiddleLayer m = new MiddleLayer();
m.method1();
}
}
Bottom layer class contains specific APIs and some implementation, the only interesting thing is that it contains java.lang.Exceptions uncontrolled, expecting the top layer to do this job. But, we are working in the middle and we will do this job:
public class MiddleLayer extends BottomLayer {
public MiddleLayer () {
final UncaughtExceptionHandler subclass = Thread.currentThread().getUncaughtExceptionHandler();
Thread.currentThread().setUncaughtExceptionHandler(new UncaughtExceptionHandler() {
#Override
public void uncaughtException(Thread thread, Throwable ex) {
System.out.println("gotcha2!");
// carry on with prior flow
subclass.uncaughtException(thread, ex);
}
});
}
}
In this way, I can get the system.out and the java.lang.Exception is propagated to the Top Layer.
Decorator inspiration came from here: Rethrow UncaughtExceptionHandler Exception after Logging It
Additional comments are welcome!
You can solve this by implementing the java.lang.Thread.UncaughtExceptionHandler interface:
public class MyExceptionHandler implements Thread.UncaughtExceptionHandler {
#Overrides
public void uncaughtException(Thread t, Throwable e) {
if (e instanceOf X) {
} else if ...
...
throw particularExceptionAccordingTheCase
}
}
Then you associate it to all threads as follows:
Thread.setDefaultUncaughtExceptionHandler(new MyExceptionHandler())
This will configure the exception handler to handle all uncaught exceptions in all threads of your application.
Note that this will only work for exceptions that aren't yet explicitly handled somewhere in your code and if there is no other handler configured for some particular thread (the uncaught exception handler can also be set for some specific thread).
EDIT: As discovered by #JBC, the above approach will not work for checked exceptions since we are forced to catch them explicitly in our uncaughtException method (note that we cannot add a throws clause to an overridden method). While it will work without problems if we only want to re-throw subtypes of RuntimeException and Error, there is a little adaptation needed if we want to make it work - you can find it explained in #JBC's question.
As you can see in the question updates, the final solution is a combination of two different approaches, in one side, having the mprev0 approach of implementing the java.lang.Thread.UncaughtExceptionHandler and, on top of this, adding a Decoration pattern to be able to re-throw a run-time exception.
There were no additional approaches so far, so I'm closing the question and bring this as the most complete response.
More information about UncaughtExceptionHandler can be found in the Java documentation, but as always, is short on examples, and here:
Advanced exception handling
Thread.UncaughtExceptionHandler Example
More information on Decorator pattern usage, can be found here:
Decorator Design Pattern in Java
Design Patterns - Decorator Pattern
And how to use to manipulate exceptions here:
Rethrow UncaughtExceptionHandler Exception after Logging It
You could also create a proxy API on top of your current API, have an invocation handler method in the proxy and put this method in a try catch block.
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/reflection/proxy.html
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/reflect/Proxy.html
This is a simplified class that describes my problem:
public class Main {
enum Test{
First(method()){ // Unhandled exception type Exception
// ...
};
Test(Object obj){
//...
}
}
static Object method() throws Exception{
// ...
if (someCondition){
throw new Exception();
}
}
}
Above someCondition depends on device and some situations and I can not decide in about it now, also as you can see, I do not want to catch Exception in method.
Yes. It is a compilation error.
No. There is no special syntax to deal with this.
I do not want to catch Exception in method.
Unfortunately if you throw a checked exception, it has to be caught further up the call stack. That is a fundamental design principal for the Java language, and one that the compiler enforces strictly.
In this, case there is no way to catch the checked exception. Hence, if you are going to call a method in enum constant parameter (as per your code), the method cannot throw a checked exception1.
Here is a possible workaround, though this is probably a bad idea:
public class Main {
enum Test{
First(methodCatchingException()){
// ...
};
Test(Object obj){
//...
}
}
static Object method() throws Exception{
// ...
if (someCondition){
throw new Exception();
}
}
static Object methodCatchingException() {
try {
return method();
} catch (Exception ex) {
throw new SomeRuntimeException("the sky is falling!", ex);
}
}
}
Another way to look at this problem is to ask yourself what should happen with the exception if the compiler let you write that ... and an exception was thrown? Where would it go?
You can't catch it ... because the enum initialization is like a static initialization.
If the Java runtime completely ignored the thrown exception, that would be really bad.
If the Java runtime crashed, then the model of checked exceptions is broken.
So, what this is saying to me is that the Java language design is right, the Java compiler is right ... and the real problem here is in your application design:
You should not be propagating a checked exception here. If an exception occurs in this context it is categorically NOT a recoverable error.
Maybe it is inadvisable to use an enum for this ... because of the potential for non-recoverable initialization errors.
(Note that if this method call terminates due to an unchecked exception, it will turn it into an ExceptionInInitializerError. In addition, the JVM will mark the enum class as uninitializable, and will throw an NoClassDefFoundError if your application attempts to use it; e.g. via Class.forName(...).)
I assume that Exception is used here for illustration purposes. It is a bad thing to declare methods as throws Exception or to throw new Exception(...)
1 - I had a look at the JLS for something to back this up. As far as I can tell, the spec does not mention this situation. I'd have expected to see it listed in JLS 11.2.3. However, it is clear that a compiler cannot allow a checked exception to propagate at that point as it would "break" the model of how checked exceptions work.
I don't think you want to be throwing a checked exception here (which is what Exception is). The reason: you're invoking the call of method inside of the constructor of Test. There's really not a clean way to deal with it.
While the obvious choice here is to switch to RuntimeException, I want you to reconsider throwing the exception in the first place. Since your enum will only ever have First declared in it, does it really make sense for it to throw an exception when it's being instantiated? Personally, I don't think it does; whatever dangerous operation it's doing should be deferred until you want to invoke it, and then would you want to throw your exception.
I have a very simple Runnable that I want to schedule for execution every 30 seconds - bear in mind that this is just a simple example for this question's sake and not the actual point of using this in reality.
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("Throwing an unchecked exception on purpose...");
int abc = 123 - 123;
int def = 123 / abc;
}
I was using Timer and TimerTask but ran into a problem: whenever the TimerTask raised an unchecked exception, any subsequent execution of that task would be cancelled; thus the task above would actually only run once because it would throw an unchecked division by 0 Exception.
As far as I know, ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor has the exact same "feature", at least according to the official Java API documentation "If any execution of the task encounters an exception, subsequent executions are suppressed".
Is there any standard way in Java to make either Timer or ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor to don't suppress subsequent executions if an unchecked exception is raised?
Many thanks.
Is there any standard way in Java to make either Timer or ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor to don't suppress subsequent executions if an unchecked exception is raised?
Well there's one really simple way - create an ExceptionSuppressingRunnable which wraps another one:
public final class ExceptionSuppressingRunnable implements Runnable
{
private final Runnable original;
public ExceptionSuppressingRunnable(Runnable runnable)
{
// TODO: Null validation
}
public void run()
{
try
{
original.run();
}
catch (RuntimeException e)
{
// TODO: Logging
}
}
}
Note that this deliberately doesn't catch Error (or any other non-Exception subclass of Throwable). You could catch Exception instead of RuntimeException - it would only make a difference in weird cases where code threw a checked exception without declaring it (due to byte code rewriting, versioning differences or whatever). I think it's probably clearer to just catch RuntimeException.
I would like to discuss one thing is that , when an exception is occurred in the body of run method in thread then where it will be reflected(Caller) and how to handle this.
here is my code:
class MyThread extends Thread{
public void run() throws IllegalInterruptedException{
Thread.currentThread().sleep(1234);
}
}
then who(Caller) will manage this exception.
There are 2 different cases :
JVM passes the exception to an exception handler, if already installed for the ThreadGroup.
Otherwise the JVM handles it.
Sample program :
public class ThreadGroupDemo extends ThreadGroup {
public ThreadGroupDemo() {
super("This is MyThreadGroupDemo");
}
public void uncaughtException(Thread t, Throwable ex) {
// Handle your exception here ....
}
}
Thread t = new Thread(new ThreadGroupDemo(), "My Thread") {
// Some code here ......
};
t.start();
NOTE : Check out this link.
If I understood good you want to be able to handle exceptions that are fired in another thread. Take a look at setDefaultUncaughtExceptionHandler, one page with sample:
Java2S
You can see run() like main() and get yourself your answer.
But I don't think you can override run() and declare new nonRuntime-Exceptions .. so you'll get a compile error.
ps: I can't find IllegalInterruptedException, maybe you wanna say InterruptedException
Exceptions are thrown by programs when something out of the ordinary occurs. A general tutorial is available here, but the summary is that your program will search within the class that throws the exception with hopes of finding something to handle it: probably a catch statement like:
catch (IllegalInterruptedException e) {
//what you want the program to do if an IllegalInterruptedException
//is thrown elsewhere and caught here. For example:
System.err.println( "program interrupted!" + e.getMessage() );
}
If your program can't find a catch statement in the class that throws the statement, it will look for something to handle it in a parent class. Be aware that whatever the child class was doing when an exception is thrown stops when it throws an exception. For this reason, you should enclose the block of code that may throw an exception in a 'try' block, and follow it with whatever you want to have execute in a 'finally' statement, which will execute no matter what.
The tutorial linked above is really helpful.
Yet another option - make the task a Callable and use Executors to submit it. You'll then get any exceptions wrapped automatically when you get the Future.