Can any of you explain what the differences are between throw, throws and Throwable and when to use which?
throws : Used when writing methods, to declare that the method in question throws the specified (checked) exception.
As opposed to checked exceptions, runtime exceptions (NullPointerExceptions etc) may be thrown without having the method declare throws NullPointerException.
throw: Instruction to actually throw the exception. (Or more specifically, the Throwable).
The throw keyword is followed by a reference to a Throwable (usually an exception).
Example:
Throwable: A class which you must extend in order to create your own, custom, throwable.
Example:
Official exception-tutorial
throw: statement to throw object t where t instanceof java.lang.Throwable must be true.
throws: a method signature token to specify checked exceptions thrown by that method.
java.lang.Throwable: the parent type of all objects that can be thrown (and caught).
See here for a tutorial on using exceptions.
This really easy to understand.
The java.lang.Throwable:
The Throwable class is
the superclass of all errors and
exceptions in the Java language. Only
objects that are instances of this
class (or one of its subclasses) are
thrown by the Java Virtual Machine or
can be thrown by the Java
throw statement.
Similarly, only this class or one of
its subclasses can be the argument
type in a catch clause.
More
The key word throws is used in method declaration, this specify what kind of exception[Throwable class] we may expect from this method.
The key word throw is used to throw an object that is instance of class Throwable.
Lest see some example:
We create ourself an exception class
public class MyException super Exception {
}
The we create a method that create a object from our exception class and throws it using key word throw.
private void throwMeAException() throws MyException //We inform that this method throws an exception of MyException class
{
Exception e = new MyException (); //We create an exception
if(true) {
throw e; //We throw an exception
}
}
When we are going to use method throwMeAException(), we are forced to take care of it in specific way because we have the information that it throws something, in this case we have three options.
First option is using block try and catch to handle the exception:
private void catchException() {
try {
throwMeAException();
}
catch(MyException e) {
// Here we can serve only those exception that are instance of MyException
}
}
Second option is to pass the exception
private void passException() throws MyException {
throwMeAException(); // we call the method but as we throws same exception we don't need try catch block.
}
Third options is to catch and re-throw the exception
private void catchException() throws Exception {
try {
throwMeAException();
}
catch(Exception e) {
throw e;
}
}
Resuming, when You need to stop some action you can throw the Exception that will go back till is not server by some try-catch block. Wherever You use method that throws an exception You should handle it by try-catch block or add the declarations to your methods.
The exception of this rule are java.lang.RuntimeException those don't have to be declared. This is another story as the aspect of exception usage.
throw - It is used to throw an Exception.The throw statement requires a single argument : a throwable class object
throws - This is used to specifies that the method can throw exception
Throwable - This is the superclass of all errors and exceptions in the Java language. you can throw only objects that derive from the Throwable class. throwable contains a snapshot of the execution stack of its thread at the time it was created
Throw is used for throwing exception, throws (if I guessed correctly) is used to indicate that method can throw particular exception, and the Throwable class is the superclass of all errors and exceptions in the Java
How to Throw Exceptions
Throw :
is used to actually throw the exception, whereas throws is declarative for the method. They are not interchangeable.
throw new MyException("Exception!);
Throws:
This is to be used when you are not using the try catch statement in your code but you know that this particular class is capable of throwing so and so exception(only checked exceptions). In this you do not use try catch block but write using the throw clause at appropriate point in your code and the exception is thrown to the caller of the method and is handled by it. Also the throws keyword is used when the function may throw a checked exception.
public void myMethod(int param) throws MyException
There are 2 main types of Exceptions:
Runtime Exceptions(unchecked): eg. NullPointerException, ClassCastException,.. Checked Exceptions: eg. FileNotFoundException, CloneNotSupportedException, ..
Runtime Exceptions are exceptions that occur at runtime and the developer should not try to catch it or stop it. You only write code to avoid them or issue a command throw, when the error criteria is met. We use throw inside the method body.
public Rational(int num, int denom){
if(denom <= 0) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Denominator must be positive");
}
this.num=num;
this.denom=denom;
}
However for Checked Exceptions, the JVM expects you to handle it and will give compiler error if not handled so you declare that it throws that type of exception as seen below in the clone() method.
Class Employee{
public Employee clone() throws CloneNotSupportedException{
Employee copy = (Employee)super.clone();
copy.hireDate = (Date)hireDate.clone();
return copy;
}
}
Same answer as above but with copy-paste pleasure:
public class GsonBuilderHelper {
// THROWS: method throws the specified (checked) exception
public static Object registerAndRun(String json) throws Exception {
// registering of the NaturalDeserializer
GsonBuilder gsonBuilder = new GsonBuilder();
gsonBuilder.registerTypeAdapter(Object.class, new NaturalDeserializer());
Gson gson = gsonBuilder.create();
Object natural = null;
try {
// calling the NaturalDeserializer
natural = gson.fromJson(json, Object.class);
} catch (Exception e) {
// json formatting exception mainly
Log.d("GsonBuilderHelper", "registerAndRun(json) error: " + e.toString());
throw new Exception(e); // <---- THROW: instance of class Throwable.
}
return natural;
}
}
Related
I am having trouble understanding how precise rethrow works in Java 7 and later versions. As pointed out in https://www.theserverside.com/tutorial/OCPJP-Use-more-precise-rethrow-in-exceptions-Objective-Java-7, in Java 7 and later versions we can use the throws clause, in a method declaration, with a comma-separated list of specific exceptions that the method could throw. If all these exceptions are subtypes of the general exception java.lang.Exception, we will be able to catch any of them in a catch block that catches this supertype, while letting client code (eg. a caller method) to know which of the possible subtypes exceptions actually occurred.
Initially, I thought that in order to let know client code which exception actually occurred, we needed to specify the list of specific exceptions in the throws clause. Nevertheless, in the following example the client code (the main() method) seems able to retrieve that information, even if we only specify the exception java.lang.Exception in the throws clause of the called method. Therefore, my question is:
Why the following code outputs the same, regardless of whether the throws clause of the method runException() is throws ExceptionA, ExceptionB or throws Exception ?
I am using Oracle JVM-12 in Eclipse. Thanks in advance!
class ExceptionA extends Exception{}
class ExceptionB extends Exception{}
public class RethrowingAndTypeChecking{
public static void runException(char what) throws Exception{
//public static void runException(char what) throws ExceptionA, ExceptionB{
try{
if(what == 'A')
throw new ExceptionA();
else if (what == 'B')
throw new ExceptionB();
}
catch(Exception e){
throw e;
}
}
public static void main (String args[]){
char ch;
for (int i=0;i<2;i++) {
if(i==0) ch='A';
else ch = 'B';
try{
runException(ch);
}
catch(ExceptionA e){
System.out.print("In main(), 'catch(ExceptionA e){}', caught exception: " + e.getClass());
}
catch(ExceptionB e){
System.out.print("In main(), 'catch(ExceptionB e){}', caught exception: " + e.getClass());
}
catch(Exception e){
System.out.print("In main(), 'catch(Exception e){}', caught exception: " + e.getClass());
}
System.out.println();
}
}
}
output:
In main(), 'catch(ExceptionA e){}', caught exception: class ExceptionA
In main(), 'catch(ExceptionB e){}', caught exception: class ExceptionB
What you're missing is the case where you need to handle those possible exceptions in different ways. Your code is catching individual exceptions, but it is, roughly speaking, performing the same action.
If you were to handle ExceptionA in a considerably different way from how you handle ExceptionB, then catching the broad Exception would not allow you to do that specifically:
catch(Exception e){
// something unexpected happened
// e could be an ExceptionA problem
// e could be an ExceptionB problem
// e could be any other unchecked exception
}
When the catch(Exception e){} block is entered, the exception could pretty much be anything, but you have only one generic code block to handle it.
Beside this, if the method you're calling declares specific checked exceptions, then the compiler can help you handle only those exceptions, thus adding to the predictability of the code
try{
runException(ch);
} catch(ExceptionA e){
// code specific to handling ExceptionA problems
} catch(ExceptionB e){
// code specific to handling ExceptionB problems
} catch(ExceptionC e){ //will not compile, because not declared by runException
// code specific to handling ExceptionB problems
}
Quoting #Carlos Heuberger, my code outputs the same, regardless of whether the throws clause of the method runException() is throws ExceptionA, ExceptionB or throws Exception because:
the run-time type of the exception is used to select the catch clause: see 14.20.1. Execution of try - catch
Whatever the exception reference type (in this case ExceptionA, ExceptionB or Exception) used to refer to the exception object thrown by method runException(), such method will throw objects of type either ExceptionA or ExceptionB. These objects will be assignment compatible with the catch parameters of the first two catch of the main() method.
After paragraphs 8.4.6, 11.2.3 and 14.20.1 of the Java Language Specification, I understood that what we actually specify in a throws clause of a method signature is the list of the exception reference types that will be assignment compatible with any possible exception object thrown from the method (given a class reference type we can make it point to instance objects of itself or to instance objects of its subclasses, not superclasses ). That tells any other caller method what exceptions it may have to deal with when invoking the method with the throws clause. In my code example, the advantage of using the clause throws ExceptionA, ExceptionB is that I will not need to catch java.lang.Exception in the main(). In fact, if I choose clause throws Exception in method runException() and delete the cath(Exception) block from the main() I will get a compile-time error. This is because even if we will be throwing ExceptionA or ExceptionB objects at run-time, the compiler will understand that method runException() may throw out an exception object of type Exception, which will not be assignment compatible with any of the catch parameters in the main() (Exception is a superclass of both ExceptionA and ExceptionB).
It's because, you've been throwing the Subclasses at,
try{
if(what == 'A')
throw new ExceptionA();
else if (what == 'B')
throw new ExceptionB();
}
of "Exception class" which are in turn being thrown out at,
catch(Exception e){
throw e;
}
after being assigned to "Exception class( at Exception e)", it will not make a difference if you specify throwing a Superclass type throws objectReference at
public static void runException(char what) throws Exception){
or Subclass type throws objectReferences at
public static void runException(char what) throws ExceptionA, ExceptionB){
As java compiler allows you to specify a throws ObjectReference, if it is of a Superclass of the object being thrown at the try statement.
These throws declarations are so that you list more explicitly what happens out of the method. Otherwise this is ordinary polymorphism: you use base class to combine in multiple subclasses, however you are definitely not changing the instances, this is why at runtime in both cases the exceptions are resolved to their concrete classes.
As a rule, you should never catch (Exception ex). Because this will catch RuntimeExceptions too. It sometimes makes sense to catch (Throwable t) or to use Thread.setDefaultUncaughtExceptionHandler to customize your uncaught exception handler to catch exceptions and then display them to the user. Sometimes I will catch an Exception, wrap it in a RuntimeException (or an Error) and throw that
When it comes to exceptions, you should really only be catching them when you can do something with them, or when you want to make sure that an exception doesn't cause the rest of the method to not process.
Personally I divide exceptions into 3 types
Problems in your code: This is something for you to fix
Problems with the user: For instance if you tell them to enter a number and they enter 'a', that's the user's error
"Friend" Exceptions: SocketException, for instance, is an example of this. If the socket closes and you have a thread waiting on input on it, it will throw this Exception, releasing the thread and letting you do clean-up on the socket.
What is the point of catching and then also throwing an Exception like below? Is it bad practice to do both?
try{
//something
} catch (Exception e){
throw new RuntimeException("reason for exception");
}
Usually, such code is used to re-wrap exceptions, that means transforming the type of the exception. Typically, you do this when you are limited in what exceptions are allowed out of your method, but internally other types of exceptions can happen. For example:
class MyServiceImplementaiton implements MyService {
void myService() throws MyServiceException { // cannot change the throws clause here
try {
.... // Do something
} catch(IOException e) {
// re-wrap the received IOException as MyServiceException
throw new MyServiceException(e);
}
}
}
This idiom enables to keep propagating exceptions to the caller, while conforming to the throws clause in the interface and hide the details of the internals (the fact that IOExceptions can happen).
In practice, this is always better than just calling e.printStackTrace() which will actually "swallow" the error condition and let the rest of the program run as if nothing had happened. In this respect, behaviour of Eclipse is quite bad as it tends to auto-write such bad-practice constructs if the developer is not careful.
This is called rethrowing an exception, and it is a common pattern.
It allows you to change the class of the exception (such as in this case), or to add more information (also the case here, as long as that error string is meaningful).
It is often a good idea to attach the original exception:
throw new RuntimeException("cause of the problem", e);
Rethrowing as an unchecked exception (a RuntimeException) is sometimes necessary when you still want to throw an exception, but the API of your method does not allow a checked exception.
In your example, an Exception is caught and a RuntimeException is thrown, which effectively replaces a (potentially) checked exception with an unchecked exception that doesn't have to be handled by the caller, nor declared by the throwing method in a throws clause.
Some examples :
This code passes compilation :
public void SomeMethod ()
{
try {
//something
} catch (Exception e){
throw new RuntimeException("reason for exception");
}
}
This code doesn't pass compilation (assuming "something" may throw a checked exception) :
public void SomeMethod ()
{
//something
}
An alternative to catching the Exception and throwing an unchecked exception (i.e. RuntimeException) is to add a throws clause :
public void SomeMethod () throws Exception
{
//something
}
This is one use case of catching one type of exception and throwing another. Another use case is to catch one type of exception and throw another type of checked exception (that your method declares in its throws clause). It is sometimes done in order to group multiple exceptions that may be thrown inside a method, and only throw one type of exception to the caller of the method (which makes it easier for them to write the exception handling code, and makes sense if all those exceptions should be handled in the same manner).
In Java, is it possible to make a method that has a throws statement to be not checked.
For example:
public class TestClass {
public static void throwAnException() throws Exception {
throw new Exception();
}
public static void makeNullPointer() {
Object o = null;
o.equals(0);//NullPointerException
}
public static void exceptionTest() {
makeNullPointer(); //The compiler allows me not to check this
throwAnException(); //I'm forced to handle the exception, but I don't want to
}
}
You can try and do nothing about it:
public static void exceptionTest() {
makeNullPointer(); //The compiler allows me not to check this
try {
throwAnException(); //I'm forced to handle the exception, but I don't want to
} catch (Exception e) { /* do nothing */ }
}
Bear in mind, in real life this is extemely ill-advised. That can hide an error and keep you searching for dogs a whole week while the problem was really a cat(ch). (Come on, put at least a System.err.println() there - Logging is the best practice here, as suggested by #BaileyS.)
Unchecked exceptions in Java extend the RuntimeException class. Throwing them will not demand a catch from their clients:
// notice there's no "throws RuntimeException" at the signature of this method
public static void someMethodThatThrowsRuntimeException() /* no need for throws here */ {
throw new RuntimeException();
}
Classes that extend RuntimeException won't require a throws declaration as well.
And a word from Oracle about it:
Here's the bottom line guideline: If a client can reasonably be expected to recover from an exception, make it a checked exception. If a client cannot do anything to recover from the exception, make it an unchecked exception.
There are 3 things you can do :
Throw a RuntimeException (or something extending a RuntimeException, like NullPointerException, IllegalArgumentException,...), you don't have to catch these as they are unchecked exceptions.
Catch the exception and do nothing (not recommended) :
public static void exceptionTest() {
makeNullPointer(); //The compiler allows me not to check this
try {
throwAnException(); //I'm forced to handle the exception, but I don't want to
} catch (Exception e) {
// Do nothing
}
}
Change exceptionTest () declaration to say that it throws an Exception, and let the method calling it catch the Exception and do what is appropriate :
public static void exceptionTest() throws Exception {
makeNullPointer(); //The compiler allows me not to check this
throwAnException(); //I'm no more forced to handle the exception
}
In Java there is two kinds of Exceptions, Checked Exceptions and Unchecked Exceptions.
Exception is a checked exception, must caught or thrown.
NullPointerException is a RuntimeException, (the compiler doesn’t forces them to be declared in the throws claus) you can ignore it, ,but it still may occur in the Runtime, and your application will crash.
From Exception documentation:
The class Exception and any subclasses that are not also subclasses of
RuntimeException are checked exceptions. Checked exceptions need to be
declared in a method or constructor's throws clause if they can be
thrown by the execution of the method or constructor and propagate
outside the method or constructor boundary.
From the RuntimeException documentation:
RuntimeException is the superclass of those exceptions that can be
thrown during the normal operation of the Java Virtual Machine.
RuntimeException and its subclasses are unchecked exceptions.
Unchecked exceptions do not need to be declared in a method or
constructor's throws clause if they can be thrown by the execution of
the method or constructor and propagate outside the method or
constructor boundary.
No, it raises a compiler error. Being a checked exception, you must either catch it or propagate it by declaring your method as potentially throwing it.
Check this and this.
Throw a RuntimeException or an exception which is derived from RuntimeException. Then the compiler will not force you to catch it.
The other answers are right, in that they correctly tell you what you should do, but it is actually possible to throw a undeclared checked exception. There are a few ways this can be done; the simplest is:
public void methodThatSecretlyThrowsAnException() {
Thread.currentThread().stop(new Exception());
}
or if your goal is to wrap an existing method that does declare its exception
public void methodThatSecretlyThrowsAnException() {
try {
methodThatAdmitsItThrowsAnException();
} catch(final Exception e) {
Thread.currentThread().stop(e);
}
}
(Needless to say, you should never do this.)
Just catch an exception and dont do any thing with it, leave it as it is and catch the generic exception in case you are not aware of the specific exception
try{
//Your logic goes here
}
catch(Exception e)//Exception is generic
{
//do nothing
}
AS I know, it's impossible in the case. Only unchecked exception, compiler can skip to check. such as RuntimeException.
You can use a loophole in the Java Compiler. Add the following code:
public RuntimeException hideThrow(Throwable e) {
if (e == null)
throw new NullPointerException("e");
this.<RuntimeException>hideThrow0(e);
return null;
}
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
private <GenericThrowable extends Throwable> void hideThrow0(Throwable e) throws GenericThrowable {
throw (GenericThrowable) e;
}
You can catch the exception, then invoke hideThrow with the exception to throw it without the compiler noticing. This works because of type erasure. At compile time, GenericThrowable represents RuntimeException because that is what we are passing. At run time, GenericThrowable represents Throwable because that is the basic type in the type parameter specification.
It is not advisable to avoid an exception with an empty catch block even though you are completely sure that is not going to fail under any circumstance. Sometimes, we are not aware of the human factor.
If you are sure that an exception is very unlikely to happen (if not impossible) you should create your own Exception and and wrap the unexpected exception in it.
For example:
private class UnlikelyException extends RuntimeException {
public UnlikelyException (Exception e){
super (e);
}
}
Then wrap your code with a try-catch block and throw your exception, which you don't have to catch
try {
// Your code
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new UnlikelyException(e);
}
When a method throws and exception, do we need to have a try block inside the method?
For example,
public void foo() throws SomeException{
try{
// content of method
}
}
Is the try block required? Or, is the method able to throw a SomeException without it :
public void foo() throws SomeException{
// content of method
}
This is the case when we are not explicitly throwing a SomeException with throw.
If SomeException is a checked exception you have to either
Use a try{}catch block or
Declare that your method throws it.
You do not have to do both, either example you show in your question works just fine.
The difference is that with the try clause you handle the SomeException yourself, whereas by declaring that your own method throws it you delegate the responsability of handling the SomeException to the calling method.
When a method throws an exception it passes responsibility to handle exception to its caller.
So you don't need to handle exception if you throw it in your signature. Like as follows.
public void foo(){
try{
// content of method
}
}
but if you write it this way.
public void foo() throws SomeException{
}
you will call your method like as follows.
try{
foo();
}
You don't need a try block.
public void foo() throws SomeException {
// do some stuff
// you decide to throw the exception by yourself:
if (throwAnException) throw new SomeException();
// or you call a method that throws SomeExpection:
methodThatCanThrowSomeException();
// do more stuff
}
As long as you declare it in your signature, you're prefectly fine. The caller of your method has to handle the exception, not you. So a caller might do:
try {
foo();
} catch (SomeException e) {
// handle exception
}
Or he might pass it further along by himself.
The most problematic case you'll regularly encounter is calling a method that declares a checked exception. In the great majority of real-life cases it is not appropriate to handle that exception at the spot, but let it propagate upwards. Unfortunately, Java makes you redeclare this same exception all the way up, which creates clutter, exposes implementation details, and often also breaks the contracts of existing methods.
In such a case the way to proceed is to wrap and rethrow:
catch (RuntimeException e) {throw e;} catch (Exception e) {throw new RuntimeException(e);}
1. If the method that we are calling from a program throws an Exception, then we need to usetry/catch around the method invocation.
2. Suppose we are writing a method that throws an exception, then we need to throw new Exception object from withing the method.
3. An exception is an object of type Exception. We have Checked Exception, and Unchecked Exception (Runtime Exception).
you don't essentially need to have a try block in it
public void foo() throws SomeException {
// do some stuff
// you decide to throw the exception by yourself:
if (throwAnException) throw new SomeException();
// or you call a method that throws SomeExpection:
methodThatCanThrowSomeException();
// do more stuff
}
I'd like to catch an exception, log it, set a flag, and the rethrow the same exception
I have this code:
public Boolean doJobWithResult() {
boolean result = true;
final Feed feed = Feed.findById(feedId);
try {
feed.fetchContents();
} catch (Exception ex) {
result = false;
Logger.info("fetching feed(%d) failed", feedId);
throw ex;
}
return result;
}
But eclipse complains at throw ex, telling that "Unhandled exception type Exception", and suggests me to add a try-catch block around it.
In fact, I want the process calling this method to handle the exception, and not handle it myself... I just want to return true if everything goes ok, and log it if there's an exception
On the other hand, I can wrap the exception inside another exception, but I can't throw the same one..
any idea?
I think there are various things to mention here:
You either want doJobWithResult() to return true on success and false on failure, or return nothing on success and throw an exception on failure.
Both at the same time is not possible. In the first case, catch the Exception, log it and return false, in the second case change your signature to return void and throw an exception and handle it in the caller.
It's a Don't to catch an exception, log it and rethrow it. Why? Because a potential caller of your method does not know that you are already logging it, and migh log it as well.
Either throw an exception (in which case the caller has to deal with it) or catch it and handle it (log it).
Note that throwing Exception does not give the caller of your method any clue about what might potentially go wrong in your method, it's always better to throw more specific exceptions, or to wrap an exception in a user-defined one and rethrow it.
Moreover, if you throw Exception, a caller might be tempted to catch Exception without noticing that this will also catch every RuntimeException (since its derived from Exception), which might not be desired behavior.
Your doJobWithResult method needs to declare that it can throw Exception:
public Boolean doJobWithResult() {
becomes
public Boolean doJobWithResult() throws Exception {
You can throw the same exception if you add throws Exception to your method signature.
Otherwise you can throw a RuntimeException.
public Boolean doJobWithResult() {
boolean result = true;
final Feed feed = Feed.findById(feedId);
try {
feed.fetchContents();
} catch (Exception ex) {
result = false;
Logger.info("fetching feed(%d) failed", feedId);
throw new RuntimeException(ex);
}
return result;
}
In such a case, you won't need to indicate that public Boolean doJobWithResult() throws something but make sure you handle it properly later on (catch or expect your thread to stop... it's a RuntimeException afterall).
Since Exception is checked, an alternative to catching the Exception is to declare your method as throwing it:
public Boolean doJobWithResult() throws Exception {
// ...
}
If doJobWithResult doesn't have to handle the exception, then remove the catch block and add "throws Exception" to the method signature. The exception logging can be done in the class/method that have to deal with the Exception in a corresponding try/catch block.
There is no need to set the result as false in the catch block, as the value won't be returned(as we are throwing an exception).
Your method should also declare that it throws an exception and so the client will be forced to handle it.
Also consider using a more specific exception which will be thrown in this particular case.
Add throws Exception to your method. You also don't need to add result = false; in your catch block.
I think the way you handle this exception is really appropriate if any failure of feed.fetchContents() method cannot be recovered. (Idea is better to halt rather than continuing)
Apart from that I would suggest you to use more specific exception hierarchy.
And another thing I got from effective java book is if you write such a method you must document with #throw (in comments) with the reason.
You could throw an unchecked exception
Logger.info("fetching feed(%d) failed", feedId);
throw new RuntimeException(ex);
I spent the last hour looking for it since not even the Complete Reference book mentions this explicitly: unhandled throw ThrowableInstance works only with unchecked exceptions.. And only runtime exceptions are unchecked. By unhandled I mean something like this:
class ThrowDemo {
static void demoproc() {
try {
throw new NullPointerException("demo");
} catch(NullPointerException e) {
System.out.println("Caught inside demoproc.");
throw e; // re-throw the exception
}
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
try {
demoproc();
} catch(NullPointerException e) {
System.out.println("Recaught: " + e);
}
}
}
This example is taken verbatim from the Complete Reference book (9th edition).
The first throw statement i.e throw new NullPointerException("demo"); is handled by the following catch block, but the second throw statement i.e. throw e; is unhandled by the demoproc() method. Now this works here and the above code compiles successfully because NullPointerException is a runtime/ unchecked exception. If the e instance were a checked exception or even an Exception class instance then you'd get an error saying the exception e is unhandled and you'd either have to handle it within demoproc() or you'd have to explicitly declare that demoproc() throws an exception using throws in the method signature.