This is very odd to me. RuntimeException
inherits from Exception
, which inherits from Throwable
.
catch(Exception exc) { /* won't catch RuntimeException */
but
catch(Throwable exc) { /* will catch RuntimeException */
I know RuntimeException
is special in that it's unchecked. But to my understanding that applies just to whether exceptions have to be declared, not whether they are caught. And even then, I don't know why this logic would break on catching Throwable
.
This is pretty relevant to me since I have a situation where RuntimeException
can be thrown in a terminal operation. I'm not sure the name for this pattern, but something like, my class EmailRoller
takes an array of Callbacks
. The code looks like this:
for(Callback cb : callbacks) { try { cb.call(item); } catch(Exception exc) { logger.error("Error in callback: ", exc); } }
So this is a case where something like an OOME needs to fly through, because if one of these callbacks consumes all machine memory, that sure as heck is going to affect the running of the other ones. But a NullPointerException
? Or an IndexOutOfBoundsException
? Those will affect the callback but won't prevent the others from running.
Also, this is a bit of an enterprise design. Different programmers or teams can add callbacks to process the item, but they should be isolated from each other. This means, as the programmer responsible for insulating these callbacks from each other, I shouldn't rely on them to make sure errors don't slip through. Catching Exception
should be about the right line, but it isn't because RuntimeException
slips through. So my more general question is: what's a good pattern here? Just catch(Exception | RuntimeException exc)
, which I believe is a syntax error because of the inheritance?
Catching Exception or ThrowableCatching Exception will catch both checked and runtime exceptions. Runtime exceptions represent problems that are a direct result of a programming problem, and as such shouldn't be caught since it can't be reasonably expected to recover from them or handle them.
Additionally, catching RuntimeException is considered as a bad practice. And, thus, throwing Generic Exceptions/Throwable would lead the developer to catch the exception at a later stage which would eventually lead to further code smells.
The Runtime Exception is the parent class in all exceptions of the Java programming language that are expected to crash or break down the program or application when they occur. Unlike exceptions that are not considered as Runtime Exceptions, Runtime Exceptions are never checked.
The premise of the question is flawed, because catching Exception
does catch RuntimeException
. Demo code:
public class Test { public static void main(String[] args) { try { throw new RuntimeException("Bang"); } catch (Exception e) { System.out.println("I caught: " + e); } } }
Output:
I caught: java.lang.RuntimeException: Bang
Your loop will have problems if:
callbacks
is nullcallbacks
while the loop is executing (if it were a collection rather than an array)Perhaps that's what you're seeing?
catch (Exception ex) { ... }
WILL catch RuntimeException.
Whatever you put in catch block will be caught as well as the subclasses of it.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With