Menu
While looking through the Spring MVC framework I noticed that, unless I misunderstand, its developers favor throws Exception instead of throwing multiple exceptions.
I realize that at the core of this question is the checked versus unchecked exceptions debate, avoiding that religious war, is it a good practice to use throws generic exception?
533
The short answer is NO. You would throw an exception if the application can't continue executing with the bad data. In your example, the logic is to display an error message on the front end and Option 2 is the cleaner method for achieving this requirement.
Don't Catch Throwable You can use it in a catch clause, but you should never do it! If you use Throwable in a catch clause, it will not only catch all exceptions; it will also catch all errors. Errors are thrown by the JVM to indicate serious problems that are not intended to be handled by an application.
First, unless you have very good reason, never catch RuntimeException , Exception or Throwable . These will catch most anything that is thrown, and Throwable will catch everything, even those things you're not meant to catch, like OutOfMemoryError .
No, absolutely not. You should specify what exceptions you're going to throw so the caller can do the right thing with each one. If you don't, "throws Exception" gets passed up the chain, and the best the callers can do is printStackTrace() and die.
Update: To counter some of the "what if I override the method" objections, I'd go a bit further and say that any time you have a package that throws exceptions (as opposed to passing up an exception from a caller), you should declare an exception class in that package. Thus, if you're overriding my "addToSchedule() throws ScheduleConflictException", you're perfectly able to subclass ScheduleConflictException to do what you need.
197
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
