Cool or Stupid? Catch(Exception[NamingException, CreateException] e)

Question

I was writing some code, and I notice a pattern in the exception handling that got me thinking:

try{

        // do stuff... throws JMS, Create and NamingException

} catch (NamingException e) {

        log1(e);
    rollback();
        doSomething(e)
} catch (CreateException e) {

        log1(e);
    rollback();
        doSomething(e)
}

Where JMSException would be handle some where up in the stack.

Would it be to just write:

try{

        // do stuff... throws JMS, Create and NamingException
} catch Exception[NamingException, CreateException] e) {

        log1(e);
    rollback();
        doSomething(e)
}

instead of putting it in tu a helper method:

try{

        // do stuff... throws JMS, Create and NamingException
} catch (NamingException e) {

        helper_handleError1(e)
} catch (CreateException e) {

        helper_handleError1(e)
}

Notice that I want to propagate stacktrace of the original JMSException, and I don't "feel like" creating an new JMSException with a third catch clause :)

Any toughs? Is this an extreme situation that would only pollute the syntax of Java, or just a cool thing to add?

score 5 · Accepted Answer · answered Dec 04 '08 at 14:43

5

They are considering an extension of this type for Java 7.

See: http://tech.puredanger.com/java7#catch

answered Dec 04 '08 at 14:43

Darron

21,309
5
49
53

score 4 · Answer 2 · answered Dec 04 '08 at 14:52

As long as we're making up syntaxes, here's how I'd like to see it:

try
{
   // do stuff ...
}
catch (NamingException e)
catch (CreateException e)
{
   log1(e);
   rollback();
   doSoemthing(e);
}

Similar to the the fallthrough of a switch statement or C# using block. Of course, there's a problem here with the variable e declared twice, but I think something could be worked out.

score 0 · Answer 3 · answered Dec 04 '08 at 14:31

0

I would like if it would be possible to do some pattern matching on exception type as a syntactic addiotion. Something like

try {
  ...
} catch ((IOException && !FileNotFoundException) || IllegalArgumentException ) {
  ... handle it
}

answered Dec 04 '08 at 14:31

Marko

30,263
18
74
108

score 0 · Answer 4 · answered Dec 04 '08 at 14:37

0

I suggest using the "Execute Around" idiom.

answered Dec 04 '08 at 14:37

Tom Hawtin - tackline

145,806
30
211
305

What is the "Execute Around" idiom? – Avi Dec 04 '08 at 14:40
I don't think that really fits his case; he wants at least one Exception to escape and propagate up the chain. – Greg Case Dec 04 '08 at 14:52
Avi: Good question. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/341971/what-is-the-execute-around-idiom – Tom Hawtin - tackline Dec 04 '08 at 20:39
Greg: I don't see that in the original question, and I don't see that as a problem anyway. – Tom Hawtin - tackline Dec 04 '08 at 20:39

score 0 · Answer 5 · answered Dec 04 '08 at 14:37

0

Try this:

try {
  ...
} catch ( Exception e) {
  if typeof(e) not in ('MyException', 'SpecialException') {
    throw e
  }
  doSomething()
}

(pseudo code)

answered Dec 04 '08 at 14:37

defnull

4,169
3
24
23

It looks good as pseudo code, but is not much practical when converted to real code ;( – Marko Dec 04 '08 at 14:40

score 0 · Answer 6 · answered Dec 04 '08 at 14:39

In first place,

} catch Exception[NamingException, CreateException] e) {

lacks a '(' char.

In second place, why "Exception[NamingException, CreateException] e" and not just "[NamingException, CreateException] e"?

The idea may be nice, but it needs some polishing. For example, suppose I declare "MyException" class with a function "doYellow()" and a "OtherException" class with a function "doYellow()". Would such function be allowed(considering there is no "doYellow()" function in the superclass). If so, would it be allowed if "doYellow()" was declared on only one of them? Is that what the "Exception" before the [] chars is for? Also, suppose there is this declaration:

void doYellow(NamingException e);
void doYellow(CreateException e);

(note that they are different functions) would it be allowed to be called?

You really should provide further details. However, it can be useful in some cases(it's not rare)

score 0 · Answer 7 · answered Dec 04 '08 at 14:45

Another way to do.

Convert a low level exception to your own high level exception, and handle it.

try{
    try{
        // do stuff... throws JMS, Create and NamingException
    } catch (NamingException e) {
            throw new MyException(e);
    } catch (CreateException e) {
            throw new MyException(e);
    }
} catch (MyException e) {
    // something on e or e.getCause();
}

score 0 · Answer 8 · answered Dec 04 '08 at 14:46

0

Why not just

try
{
   // do stuff... throws JMS, Create and NamingException
}  catch (JMSException e) 
{   
   if (e instanceof CreateException || e instanceof NamingExcption)
   {    
     log1(e);
     rollback();
     doSomething(e);
   }
   else
     throw e;
}

answered Dec 04 '08 at 14:46

Paul Tomblin

179,021
58
319
408

Sometime you may not want to do it for two reasons. 1. They may not have same common parent exception. 2. The re-throw class may not a checked exception declared on the interface. – Dennis C Dec 04 '08 at 14:53

Cool or Stupid? Catch(Exception[NamingException, CreateException] e)

8 Answers8

Linked