Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

Java Exceptions, What to catch and what not to?

Tags:

java

exception

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.

like image 526
Kevin Boyd Avatar asked Nov 22 '09 05:11

Kevin Boyd


People also ask

How to handle exceptions in Java?

Java provides five keywords that are used to handle the exception. The following table describes each. The "try" keyword is used to specify a block where we should place an exception code. It means we can't use try block alone. The try block must be followed by either catch or finally. The "catch" block is used to handle the exception.

What is an example of catching one exception for all?

3. Catching one exception for all If we catch the most general exception first, then we also catch other exceptions which are subtypes of the general exception. For example, the above example can be re-written to catch only the IOException which is also parent of FileNotFoundException: Let’s see another example. Consider the following code:

Are You suppressing exceptions with blank catch blocks in Java?

It is a well-known best practice that a Java application should not suppress caught exceptions with blank catch blocks; however, there are more subtle mistakes that Java applications make which can hamper problem determination. Here are 3 malpractices: // #1. Worst -- there is no indication that an exception // occurred and processing continues.

How to combine multiple exceptions in a single catch clause in Java?

Since Java 7, we can combine multiple exceptions in a single catch clause. This becomes very handy in case we want to apply the same handling for those exceptions. For example, the above code can be re-written using a multi-catch statement like this: Note that we can group only un-related exceptions together.


1 Answers

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.

like image 160
Mike Spross Avatar answered Sep 24 '22 00:09

Mike Spross