there is a reason no other language ever written has checked
exceptions - checked exceptions are a bad idea.
On my first java project back in 1999 I remember adding in a checked
exception to a utility class. It has effects on hundreds of classes
and 1000s of method calls. I then decided it was more trouble than it
was worth and switched everything to runtime exceptions. Worked
brilliantly.
Checked exceptions almost always degenerate into "throws exception" on
100s to 1000s of methods in your project. They simply don't scale,
one small change can ripple through an entire project. They also lead
to try{blahblah}catch(Exception e}{} (exception hiding). They lead to
logging the exception multiple times (catch, log, rethrow), giant
method signatures, exception wrapping, and other harmful practices.
The correct (IMO) way to handle it is to let the exception bubble up
to the top level thread and handle it there, whether it's present to
the user, log, and/or cancel a transaction. Exceptions almost never
can be recovered from and people are almost always fooling themselves
if they think they can. I think 95+% of the time exceptions are from
bugs, not from recoverable situations. People try to build hugely
fault tolerant systems and they end up hiding bugs.
In the rare case that you want to handle an exception at a lower
level, do it. But you certainly don't want this to be the default
behavior, it's the EXCEPTIONAL case. :)
On Aug 17, 9:10 pm, Michael Neale <michael.ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What do people think of the scala approach of no checked exceptions -
> even checked exceptions are not treated specially by the constructor
> (personally, I like it).
>
> On Aug 18, 12:55 pm, Christian Catchpole <christ...@catchpole.net>
> wrote:
>
> > No, i just let that go up. I really try to avoid the declare as null
> > then set thingy.
>
> > On Aug 18, 12:03 pm, Casper Bang <casper.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You neglect to handle the checked exception declared by
> > > prepareStatement no?
>
> > > PreparedStatement stmt = null;
> > > try{
> > > stmt = connection.prepareStatement(sql);
> > > final ResultSet rs = stmt.executeQuery();
> > > try{
> > > while (rs.next()){
> > > // Stuff...
> > > {
> > > }
> > > finally{
> > > rs.close();
> > > }}
>
> > > catch(SQLException e){
> > > // Logging...}
>
> > > finally{
> > > try{
> > > stmt.close();
> > > }
> > > catch(SQLException whoTheFuckCares){
> > > };
>
> > > }
>
> > > Really, how many other ways are there to do it I wonder now? (Apart
> > > from wrapping certain things, like the last try-catch clause in some
> > > general purpose "closer util"?).
>
> > > /Casper
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
