Should i catch runtimeexception

Sometimes your hand is forced by existing interfaces. So yes there are legitimate reasons to turn a checked exception into an unchecked exception or to a different type of checked exception.

Firstly and most importantly make sure you use the exception chaining facility. That way the information from the original exception is not lost and can be used for debugging. Secondly you have to decide what exception type to use. Using a plain runtimeexception makes it harder for the caller to determine what went wrong but if the caller is trying to determine what went wrong that may be an indication that you should not have changed the exception to make it unchecked.

In the framework level, we should be catch runtime exceptions to reduce more block of try catch to the invoker in the same place.

In the application level, we rarely capture runtime exceptions and i think this practice was bad. Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams? Learn more. Is it good practice to catch a checked exception and throw a RuntimeException?

Ask Question. Asked 9 years, 11 months ago. Active 1 year, 9 months ago. Viewed 87k times. Improve this question. RoflcoptrException RoflcoptrException 2, 2 2 gold badges 17 17 silver badges 18 18 bronze badges.

If you throw a checked exception from a method in your code and the catch is three levels above, you must declare that exception in the signature of each method between you and the catch. This means that a change at a low level of the software can force signature changes on many higher levels. Martin, «Clean Code», page — Songo. We read it in our JUG only 6 years ago when it came out and it seemed like good advice! Now, with functional programming, checked exceptions are completely unwieldy.

Languages like Scala and Kotlin don't even have them. I've started wrapping checked in unchecked exceptions too. GlenPeterson you also have the advice in FP to avoid execetions altogether and use sum types instead — jk.

Function , Predicate , etc do not have parametrized throws clauses. This means that you need to catch, wrap, and rethrow any checked exceptions in the inner loop of any stream methods. That in and of itself tips the balance for me on whether checked exceptions are a bad idea.

Songo that isn't particularly true, you can wrap an underlying implementation's exceptions with your own layer's exceptions, and propagate these. Show 3 more comments. Active Oldest Votes. Improve this answer. In most real-life applications, there are very few unrecoverable conditions.

That's true, MichaelBorgwardt, but the place for that sort of handling is often at the very highest level of the application, so whenever I see developers "handling" exceptions at lower levels, it's usually easy to remove their handling and just percolate the exception upwards.

For example, a web framework like JSF catches exceptions at the highest level, prints log messages, and continues processing other requests not saying the default handling is suitable, just an example.

Anyone who writes an empty catch block should be fired on the spot, and confined to janitorial duties in a dungeon somewhere — Sarsaparilla. Add a comment. Throwing checked exceptions and not being able to recover from it is not helping. Also from the same link: The decision to use unchecked exceptions is a complicated one, and it's clear that there's no obvious answer. Glorfindel 3, 6 6 gold badges 23 23 silver badges 33 33 bronze badges. Rig Rig 1, 17 17 silver badges 21 21 bronze badges. Thanks for the hint.

And what if he throws a custom exception that he has implemented that inherits directly from RuntimeException? Gary Buyn: many people think that checked exception are a failed language design experiment and they are the ones that should be used sparingly, not as a matter of habit. Gary Buyn: Here's an article that outlines the debate pretty well: ibm.

My view is that the only valid reason to use a checked exception is for a condition that you expect all callers to handle immediately. Unnecessary throwing checked exceptions violates encapsulation.

Can you handle it? Besides, those exceptions - its implementation specific! It should not be a part of the contract! All you need to know is that there was an error.

And what if the implementation changes? Show 20 more comments. It depends. Community Bot 1. I started seeing APIs that favor throwing runtime exceptions while also documenting it so the client has the option to catch it if it wants to. A method which throws an exception cannot generally know if a caller might recover from it. On the other hand, I would suggest that a method should only let a checked exception thrown by an inner method to escape if knows why the inner method threw the exception, and the reason is consistent with the outer method's API.

If an inner method throws a checked exception unexpectedly, letting it bubble up as a checked exception may leave the caller misinformed as to what happened. Thank you for mentioning the exception handling layer -- e. This might be the case near the top of the call tree, where the only thing you can do is try to recover gracefully and knowing the specific error won't really help.

In that case, you may have to record the error and move on process next record, inform user that an error occurred, etc. Otherwise, no. You should always handle exceptions as close to the error as is practical, not wrap them up as a white elephant for the next handler.

MichaelK The problem is "as close to the error as is practical" in practice often means "through several intervening layers which are out of your direct control".

For example, if my class has to implement a certain interface, my hands are tied. That can happen arbitrarily deep in the call tree. Even when the interfaces are under my control, adding throws declarations can make the abstraction leaky if there are only a limited set of concrete implementations that can conceivably throw. Making every client pay the cost for the implementation details of a few is not a great design tradeoff IMO.

TL;DR Premise Runtime exceptions should be thrown when the error is irrecoverable: when the error is in the code, and does not depend on external state thus, the recovery would be correcting the code. Checked exceptions should be thrown when the code is correct, but external state is not as expected: no network connectivity, file not found or is corrupt, etc.

Conclusion We may rethrow a checked exception as a runtime exception if the propagating or interface code assumes that the underlying implementation depends on external state, when it clearly does not. Ben Barkay Ben Barkay 4 4 silver badges 5 5 bronze badges. Rethrowing refers to the process of throwing an already caught exception, rather than throwing a new one.

Wrapping, on the other hand, refers to the process of wrapping an already caught exception, within another exception:. In this case, the method is throwing a NumberFormatException which is a runtime exception. Because of this, we don't have to mark the method signature with either NumberFormatException or Throwable. We now have to declare that the method is throwing a Throwable. Why this can be useful is a broad topic that is out of scope for this blog, but there are usages for this specific case.

With all that covered, you should be pretty familiar with how exceptions work and how to use them. Now, let's cover the best and worst practices when it comes to handling exceptions which we hopefully understand fully now.

In any case, even though the index is too high, the offending line of code will not execute and no exception will arise.

As already mentioned above, it's always better to use the newer, more concise and cleaner approach when working with resources. If you're not utilizing the previous advice for any reason, at least make sure to close the resources manually in the finally block.

If your intention is to simply satisfy the compiler, you can easily do so by swallowing the exception :. Swallowing an exception refers to the act of catching an exception and not fixing the issue. This way, the compiler is satisfied since the exception is caught, but all the relevant useful information that we could extract from the exception for debugging is lost, and we didn't do anything to recover from this exceptional condition.

This approach forms an illusion of handling. Yes, while it is better than simply ignoring the exception, by printing out the relevant information, this doesn't handle the exceptional condition any more than ignoring it does.

If execution of the try block completes abruptly for any other reason R, then the finally block is executed, and then there is a choice. So, in the terminology of the documentation, if the finally block completes normally, then the try statement completes abruptly for reason R. If the finally block completes abruptly for reason S, then the try statement completes abruptly for reason S and reason R is discarded.

In essence, by abruptly returning from a finally block, the JVM will drop the exception from the try block and all valuable data from it will be lost:. In this case, even though the try block throws a new IOException , we use return in the finally block, ending it abruptly.

This causes the try block to end abruptly due to the return statement, and not the IOException , essentially dropping the exception in the process. Very similar to the previous example, using throw in a finally block will drop the exception from the try-catch block:. In this example, the MyException thrown inside the finally block will overshadow the exception thrown by the catch block and all valuable information will be dropped. Critical thinking and creative ways to find a solution to a problem is a good trait, but some solutions, as creative as they are, are ineffective and redundant.

Java doesn't have a goto statement like some other languages but rather uses labels to jump around the code:. Using exceptions for this purpose is ineffective and slow. Exceptions are designed for exceptional code and should be used for exceptional code. When trying to debug a piece of code and finding out what's happening, don't both log and throw the exception:. Doing this is redundant and will simply result in a bunch of log messages which aren't really needed.

The amount of text will reduce the visibility of the logs. Unless there's a good, specific reason to catch any of these two, it's generally not advised to do so. Catching Exception will catch both checked and runtime exceptions.

How to explain whether Exception will catch RuntimeException? Asked ago. Active 3 hr before. Viewed times. I caught: java.

RuntimeException: Bang. Consider the following piece of code: Most of the time, client code cannot do anything about SQLExceptions. Other "catch-whether" queries related to "How to explain whether Exception will catch RuntimeException? Net core and React uppy. I was going through MDN docs on Promises And came up with an example which i am not able to understand. Can Anyone explain the flow to me ASP.

Sorting dates throws exception TypeError: data. Guzzle: Can't catch exception details How to handle exceptions thrown in react-router child routes.