This question already has answers here:
Java try/catch/finally best practices while acquiring/closing resources
(8 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
I am using Apache PDFBox to read some PDF files. When I am done with the PDF's I need to release the PDF documents. To do this I call the close() method which throws an exception. The program also allows to edit the PDF in which case an exception could be thrown but my program just closes them which shouldn't error. In this case is it acceptable to just catch the exception and leave the catch block empty or is there a better way to deal with it?
For example:
try {
pdf.close();
catch {
//empty
}
Is it acceptable to just ignore when a stream close throws exception?
In most cases it is, but it really depends on the context. If you decide not to handle the close exception and are looking to avoid extra try-catch block, then you can use IOUtils from commons-io library.
finally {
IOUtils.closeQuietly(pdf);
}
This is equivalent to the following
finally {
try {
if (closeable != null) {
closeable.close();
}
} catch (IOException ioe) {
// ignore
}
}
try {
//code to catch
} catch (IOException ex) {//specific catch
ex.printStackTrace();
} catch (Exception e) {//Catch errors lazily, This will catch any exception within the try that is rooted from the Exception class.
e.printStackTrace();
}
There are more proper ways to do this, but this is a easy way. You really only need one catch clause, you can have multi catch's. Google "how to use Try/catch/finally in java" and you should come up with some good stuff.
Good luck!
Related
This question already has answers here:
Exception thrown in catch and finally clause
(12 answers)
Closed 1 year ago.
I have this piece of Java code.
void convertFile() {
try{
.....
}catch (Exception e) {
logError("Error in convertJsonFile", e);
throw e;
}finally{
if (writer!=null) {
writer.close();
writer = null;
}
if (fos!=null) {
fos.close();
fos = null;
}
ms2 = System.currentTimeMillis();
logInfo(String.format("Time elapsed: %d seconds.", ((ms2-ms1)/1000)));
logInfo("File conversion complete.");
}
return f + "_changed.xml";
}
The catch block logs and rethrows the Exception.
But it seems the finally block also throws a RuntimeException.
Will the finally block be executed if the catch block rethrows Exception as done here?
If I remember correctly finally block will be executed even in this case.
OK if so... what will happen if we enter the catch block (it rethrows), then we enter the finally block, and the finally block also throws a RuntimeException at this line writer.close(); ? Which exception will be thrown from this whole method - the rethrown one from the catch block, or the RuntimeException from the finally block?!
I think the RuntimeException will be the final outcome of the method and we will never reach the line in the catch block which rethrows. Because I guess the line which rethrows is executed after the finally block. But I am not sure. I got really confused.
Could someone clear my doubts here?
Seems I have forgotten some of these details.
And I have no decent access to the logs, they are in Elastic/Kibana and access to them is a real pain.
Yes, finally block will be executed
The exception from finally block will be thrown in this case. Thus, exception from catch block will be lost.
I am using a third party api to get user authentication in spring.
I need to catch the exceptions that occur when trying to connect to that api, like connection time out and page not found (if their server is down).
Right now I am trying to do this with below code. Is this sufficient to catch these exceptions?
public boolean userAuthentication(String userName) {
try {
if(hasAccess(userName)) {
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
} catch (IOException e) {
logger.info("exception occured "+ e);
return false;
}
}
Here hasAccess is the third party api, I cannot change that method. Whereas I need to catch these exception and give appropriate response to the user.
does hasAccess(String) define any throws statement?
Does it define that it throws IOException?
Do you have the access to the source code of this method? If you do then you can go and and check if they are handling any exceptions thrown or they are re-throwing any runtime exceptions.
To be on safer side, you should catch runtime exceptions, as the error is unpredictable for you, so you can gracefully handle errors.
It is impossible to tell whether this is sufficient without looking at the implementation of hasAccess(), since that is the function that will throw the error.
However, if you really need to catch this exception, you can always use
try {
if (hasAccess(userName)){}
} catch (Exception e) {
//caught
}
This isn't always good practice, since Exception will catch every exception, but it is a solution if you're looking for one.
I load a xml content, and save it to the disk. Then I read it, and try to parse.
When I have successfully parsed xml, should I ignore IOException in 7 line?
catch (IOException ignore) {}
Or some problems may occured?
private HashMap <String, VideoDto> loadContent(String url){
try {
BufferedInputStream bStream = httpGateway.loadContents();
cachedContent = xmlParser.parseVideos(bStream);
try {
bStream.close();
} catch (IOException ignore) {}
return cachedContent;
} catch (XMLStreamException e) {
throw new IllegalStateException("I/O error during integration", e);
}
}
public BufferedInputStream loadContents() {
URL source = config.getContentPath();
URL target= config.getLastImportedFile();
try {
ReadableByteChannel rbc = Channels.newChannel(source.openStream());
FileOutputStream fos = new FileOutputStream(target.getFile());
fos.getChannel().transferFrom(rbc, 0, Long.MAX_VALUE);
} catch (MalformedURLException e) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Wrong url format", e);
} catch (IOException e) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("I/O error while saving "+target, e);
}
return createBufferStream(config.getLastImportedFile());
}
private BufferedInputStream createBufferStream(URL url){
try {
return new BufferedInputStream(url.openConnection().getInputStream());
} catch (IOException e) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException(e);
}
}
There are three parts to this question:
Q1: Should one ever ignore (squash) an exception?
I think that the answer is ... "it depends".
If the exception cause is known AND it you can catch it precisely (i.e. without also catching exceptions with different causes) AND the correct thing to do is to ignore it then ... IMO ... Yes it is acceptable.
Otherwise. No.
Q2: What does and IOException mean in this case, and does it matter?
The answer is that it is not at all clear. Under normal circumstances, one would not expect an IOException when closing an input stream, and it is hard to know what it might mean. Intuitively it is probably harmless. On the other hand, if you don't know what might cause something it is hard to say whether or not it matters.
Q3: Should you simply ignore this IOException?
I would say no. But I would handle it like this:
} catch (IOException ex) {
// possibly log the exception here.
throw new AssertionError("Unexpected exception", ex);
}
The rationale is that if something totally unexpected does occur, then it would be a good thing if the developer / maintainer could find out, and figure out how to deal with it.
On the other hand, if you could make an a priori assessment that any IOException here is harmless, then simply logging (or even squashing) it might be sufficient.
Never ignore exceptions, even if nothing goes wrong. This is the seed of bugs.
The desired thing to do, if you don't need any actions to be done, is, print its stack trace.
e.printStackTrace();
You may ignore that at any time, but may help you in the long run.
Use the try syntax that exists since Java 7:
try (BufferedInputStream bStream = httpGateway.loadContents();) {
cachedContent = xmlParser.parseVideos(bStream);
}
With this you don't have to call .close() manually.
You should catch all exceptions that are thrown inside the try block, though.
This means that the stream will (probably) still be open, whether that is a problem in your program only you will know. At the very least you should log the exception, otherwise you might get strange results that are hard to detect.
You might also want to look at the try-with-resources syntax which doesn't pose this dilemma:
try (BufferedInputStream bStream = httpGateway.loadContents()) {
cachedContent = xmlParser.parseVideos(bStream);
}
In Effective Java Joshua Bloch gives this as an example of an exception you might want to log and ignore. He says, however, that in general you want to do more than just logging an exception.
Just a simple question. Given this code:
try {
// operation on inputstream "is"
} finally {
try {
is.close();
} catch (IOException ioe) {
//if ioe is thrown, will the handle opened by 'is' be closed?
}
}
If the close() throws, is the file handle still around (and leaked), or will it have been closed?
Not reliably so. If is.close() throws, is might not be marked closed. In any case, there is nothing you can do about it. You don't know the internals of is. The Java 7 equivalent simply hides the problem.
try (InputStream is = Files.newInputStream(...)) {
// Stuff with is.
} catch (IOException is) {
... // Handles exceptions from the try block.
} // No finally. Handled by try-with-reources
If the auto-close throws, the exception is a suppressed exception, and you'll never know if or when the file handle is reclaimed.
I did extensive research on exceptions, but I'm still lost.
I'd like to know what is good to do or not.
And I'd also like you to give me your expert opinion on the following example :
public void myprocess(...) {
boolean error = false;
try {
// Step 1
try {
startProcess();
} catch (IOException e) {
log.error("step1", e);
throw new MyProcessException("Step1", e);
}
// Step 2
try {
...
} catch (IOException e) {
log.error("step2", e);
throw new MyProcessException("Step2", e);
} catch (DataAccessException e) {
log.error("step2", e);
throw new MyProcessException("Step2", e);
}
// Step 3
try {
...
} catch (IOException e) {
log.error("step3", e);
throw new MyProcessException("Step3", e);
} catch (ClassNotFoundException e) {
log.error("step3", e);
throw new MyProcessException("Step3", e);
}
// etc.
} catch (MyProcessException mpe) {
error = true;
} finally {
finalizeProcess(error);
if (!error) {
log.info("OK");
} else {
log.info("NOK");
}
}
}
Is it ok to throw a personnal exception (MyProcessException) in each step in order to manage a global try...catch...finally ?
Is it ok to manage each known exception for each step ?
Thank you for your help.
EDIT 1 :
Is it a good practice like this ? log directly in global catch by getting message, and try...catch(Exception) in upper level....
The purpose is to stop if a step fail, and to finalize the process (error or not).
In Controller
public void callProcess() {
try {
myprocess(...);
} catch (Exception e) {
log.error("Unknown error", e);
}
}
In Service
public void myprocess(...) {
boolean error = false;
try {
// Step 1
try {
startProcess();
log.info("ok");
} catch (IOException e) {
throw new MyProcessException("Step1", e);
}
// Step 2
try {
...
} catch (IOException e) {
throw new MyProcessException("Step2", e);
} catch (DataAccessException e) {
throw new MyProcessException("Step2", e);
}
// Step 3
try {
...
} catch (IOException e) {
throw new MyProcessException("Step3", e);
} catch (ClassNotFoundException e) {
throw new MyProcessException("Step3", e);
}
// etc.
} catch (MyProcessException mpe) {
error = true;
log.error(mpe.getMessage(), mpe);
} finally {
finalizeProcess(error);
if (!error) {
log.info("OK");
} else {
log.info("NOK");
}
}
}
Thank you.
Edit 2 :
Is it a real bad practice to catch (Exception e) in lower level and to throws a personnal exception ?
Doesn't exist a generic rule,it depends on your needs.
You can throw a personal exception, and you can manage each known exception.
But pay attention, it is important what you want.
try{
exec1();
exec2(); // if exec1 fails, it is not executed
}catch(){}
try{
exec1();
}catch(){}
try{
exec2(); // if exec1 fails, it is executed
}catch(){}
In your example above it may well be acceptable to throw your own custom exception.
Imagine I have some data access objects (DAO) which come in different flavours (SQL, reading/writing to files etc.). I don't want each DAO to throw exceptions specific to their storage mechansim (SQL-related exceptions etc.). I want them to throw a CouldNotStoreException since that's the level of abstraction that the client is working at. Throwing a SQL-related or a File-related exception would expose the internal workings, and the client isn't particular interested in that. They just want to know if the read/write operation worked.
You can create your custom exception using the originating exception as a cause. That way you don't lose the original info surrounding your problem.
In the above I probably wouldn't handle each exception in each step as you've done. If processing can't continue after an exception I would simply wrap the whole code block in an exception handling block. It improves readability and you don't have to catch an exception and then (later on) check the processing status to see if you can carry on as normal (if you don't do this you're going to generate many exceptions for one original issue and that's not helpful).
I would consider whether multiple catch {} blocks per exception add anything (are you doing something different for each one?). Note that Java 7 allows you to handle multiple exception classes in one catch{} (I realise you're on Java 6 but I note this for completeness).
Finally perhaps you want to think about checked vs unchecked exceptions.
The main point of the exception mechanism is to reduce and group together handling code. You are handling them in the style typical for a language without excptions, like C: every occurrence has a separate handling block.
In most cases the best option is to surround the entire method code with a catch-all:
try {
.... method code ...
}
catch (RuntimeException e) { throw e; }
catch (Exception e) { throw new RuntimeException(e); }
The only times where this is not appropriate is where you want to insert specific handling code, or wrap in a custom exception that will be specifically handled later.
Most exceptions, especially IOExcption in your case, represent nothing else but failure and there will be no handling beyond logging it and returning the application to a safe point, where it can process further requests. If you find yourself repeating the same handling code over and over, it's a signal that you are doing it wrong.
One very important rule: either handle or rethrow; never do both. That is what you are doing in your example: both logging and rethrowing. Most likely the rethrown exception will be caught further up in the call stack and logged again. Reading through the resulting log files is a nightmare, but unfortunately quite a familiar one.
int step = 0;
try
{
step = 1;
...
step = 2;
...
step = 3;
...
}
catch (Exception1 e)
{
log ("Exception1 at step " + step);
throw new MyException1 ("Step: " + step, e);
}
catch (Exception2 e)
{
log ("Exception2 at step " + step);
throw new MyException2 ("Step: " + step, e);
}
...
I'd say it depends on your needs...
If step2 can execute correctly even if step1 failed, you can try/catch step1 separately.
Otherwise, I would group all steps in one try/catch block and made sure that the individual steps produce a log message when they fail.
That way you don't litter your code and still know what went wrong
It's ok to catch each known exception, so you can log what exception occure, and why it did.
Here some links to exception handling patterns/anti-patterns:
Do:
http://www.javaworld.com/jw-07-1998/jw-07-techniques.html
Don't:
http://today.java.net/article/2006/04/04/exception-handling-antipatterns
http://nekulturniy.com/Writings/RebelWithoutAClause/Rebel_without_a_clause.html
About creating your own exceptions, it's certainly useful if you're creating an API, a framework or another piece of reusable code, but in a regular application, it's more debatable and I personally would suggest to stick to existing exceptions.