Is the following way to code good practice?
try {
//my code here
} catch (Exception e) {
logger.error("Some error ", e);
throw new MyCustomException("Some error ", e);
}
Moreover, should I..
use only the logger?
throw only the exception?
do both?
I understand that with throw I can catch the exception in another part of the callstack, but maybe additional logging has some hidden benefits and is useful as well.
Normally, I'd argue that you should either log or rethrow. Doing both will just cause every layer to log the exception again and again, which makes the logs hard to read. Even worse, it's hard to figure out how many errors you actually have - was it seven errors, or seven layers of the app which logged the same error?
This means that if you suppress an exception, you log it and say why you didn't think it was worth rethrowing.
On the other hand, if you re-throw the exception, you know it's either going to be caught and suppressed (in which case the catcher logs the exception and why it was suppressed), or it will bubble up out of your app and be caught by the app container, which will catch and log the exception. Every exception shows up once and only once in the logs.
I use both in some cases, logging and throwing the exception. Especially, it's useful in APIs. By throwing the exception, we allow the caller to handle it, and by logging, we can identify the root cause of it ourselves.
And, if the caller is in the same system, then if we add logs in every catch, there will be duplicate logs.
When using the pattern you suggest, you usually end up with error events being reported multiple times in the log. In addition, it's not always simple to connect between them when reading the log.
Personally I prefer logging error events only once, and doing it in the higher call levels. Therefore I almost never log & re-throw. I usually let the exception go up the call stack until it reached a context where it can be handled somehow, and this is where I log.
If the exceptions are wrapped and re-thrown correctly, the context should be perfectly clear from the stack traces of the single log message.
The proper answer would be: "it depends"
You do want in general log the exceptions that you catch, since they correspond to something going wrong. That is why code analysis tools such as sonar will raise warnings when you do not log them.
Consider the following taks: parsing a file. While parsing the file you actually try to parse each line. Sometimes some lines will be malformed, and therefore you don't want to stop parsing the file because of it. In that case, you probably want to just log the wrong line and keep going on the file.
However, imagine that at some point you encounter an I/O exception while reading (for example some other program deleted the file while yours was accessing it).
In this case, you will probably want to log your log the error you encounter, and throw a new exception to stop processing the whole file.
So in short, you have to think about what is the best thing to do. But both practices are not bad.
I think you may need to use the pattern judiciously. As you've written the above, for each exception you're going to log 2 stacktraces and that may fill your logs with excessive information.
With respect to logging vs. throwing, they're two separate concerns. Throwing an exception will interrupt your execution, prevent any further work, perhaps rollback database commits etc. Logging will simply dump info to the log file (or elsewhere). It's of more use for debugging, and often much more difficult to test.
I know that is really old question, but I have an another solution.
Consider this. You can log the problem in catch block and throw a new unchecked exception (of course with passing the previous one inside). In such solution there is no overflow in the logs and exception still bubble up to the highest level.
try {
//my code here
} catch (SomeException e) {
logger.error("Some error occured", e);
throw new MyUncheckedException("Some error ", e);
}
My opinion.
When you need to throw an exception, no matter if it is a Checked or UnChecked(Most RD would not catch this.). It means that you want to do something else by stopping the process.
When you need to log something.
It means you want to track it.
It's quite different things.
You need to check what you really need.
BTW: If your exception was thrown by getting no data from DB.
I suggest you to modify the process to return an empty Data Object(POJO). It is better than throwing an exception.
Related
I'm trying to understand difference between error and exception but it looks same thing and on Oracle Official tutorials I read this line.
Checked exceptions are subject to the Catch or Specify Requirement.
All exceptions are checked exceptions, except for those indicated by
Error, RuntimeException, and their subclasses.
Now about I'm thinking it's same. But after searching more I found some difference as theoretical that.
Exception: are recoverable
Errors: not recoverable.
Exception Example:
try{
read file
}
catch(FileNotFoundException e){
// how I can recover here? can i create that file?
// I think we can just make log file to continue or exit.
}
Error Example:
try{
try to locate memory
}
catch(MemoryError e){
// I think we can just make log file to continue or exit.
}
Edited
I'm asking about recover-able and non-recoverable.
Error, as you already figured out, means you are in serious trouble. In a catch block you might be able to do something like logging, but basically that's it.
Non-recoverable exceptions are mostly runtime exceptions like NullPointerException. They are usually the result of some missed checks in the program code. Therefore the solution is normally to fix the code.
A recoverable exception is something that you know beforehand can happen and take certain measures. Think of a web application that calls some backend service. That service may or may not be available which can cause the execution of the operation to fail. Therefore you have a checked exception, in this case most likely a custom exception that you throw, and then handle it in the front end code in a manner where you tell the user, sorry backend service xy is down, try again later or contact support.
Recoverable does not mean that the application can do something to resolve the cause of the exception, though there may be cases where this is possible.
All classes that inherit from class Exception but not directly or indirectly from class RuntimeException are considered to be checked exceptions.Such exceptions are typically caused by conditions that are not under the control of the program.
Example
in file processing, the program can’t open a file if it does not
exist.
Recoverable
So It is very easy to know that if a file does not exists so you dont need to open that file hence that is recoverable
All exception types that are direct or indirect subclasses of RuntimeException (package java.lang) are unchecked exceptions. These are typically caused by defects in program’s code.
Example
ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsExceptions
ArithmeticExceptions
Error
Unrecoverable
So thatswhy program can not recover from these kind of errors or exceptions
Unrecoverable errors are the ones that put the application in an undefined state, like a broken database connection or a closed port, you may handle the error and continue to execute but it would not make sense. Modern languages like Rust and Go use the name panic for errors of these nature, to make the distinction clear. Best action to take is logging the error, if it is possible, and exiting the application.
A recoverable errors are the ones we can handle gracefully, like division by zero or validation errors. It is something expected and the resulting behavior is covered in the language spec. Yes, application behaves erratic when that a recoverable error happens but we can contain it or work around it.
The Object Throwable has 2 childs : Exception and Error.
All Exceptions are recoverable and all Errors are non-recoverable.
All Exceptions are recoverable because you can catch them and let your program continue its execution.
However all Errors , even when you add them to a catch block, will cause the abrupt termination of your program.
Examples of Errors: StackOverflowError, OutOfMemoryError,..
Remark : Checked and unchecked Exceptions are childs of Exception so recoverable.
I have a generic question regarding to how to design error handling. I want to use some third-party service in my code. Normally I wrap the service within a client class. Then the rest of my code only deals with my client class and is blind to the real service under the hook. My client class has some mechanism to log errors. But it doesn't want to catch and deal any exception from the service. Ideally it should just ignore the exception handling and let the exception propagates to outside. However, if I want to log the exception, I have to do something like this:
try{
.... // call 3rd party service;
}catch(Exception e){ // e is triggered from the service;
Log.error("Oops, an error: " + e); // shall I log the exception??
throw e; // don't swallow the exception;
}
On one hand, I don't want to do this. I can ignore the handling and logging of the exception. Let the caller of my client class handles exceptions or logs errors. The question is, when should I log exceptions and when should I not? I'd like to hear some common practice and principles. Thank you.
Don't log the exception at every level. Log it only at the "top" level. Log it at the point where not logging it would cause the exception to be missed.
That depends on you. My recommendations are to log the exceptions when they indicate something truly unexpected. Granted, the name "exception" would seem to indicate that this is always the case, but not necessarily.
Sometimes, code returns exceptions for scenarios that are unexeceptional.
Sometimes, code calls other code, knowing it will invoke exceptions in certain cases, but the set of exceptions is "OK".
Sometimes, an exception indicates something unexpected really did happen, and that's usually a bad thing. That's when you should log it, or better yet, make sure your code complains loudly.
If there is a fairly low chance of triggering the exception, I see no real reason not to log it. The only reason to not log an exception to help with debugging is if it is continually firing. If you have an exception that has this characteristic, then I suggest you write your code so that you don't have exceptions continually being triggered.
tl;dr: Exceptions are (hopefully) rare, so log them.
There is a lot of material out there which suggests that printing the stack trace of an exception is bad practice.
E.g. from the RegexpSingleline check in Checkstyle:
This check can be used [...] to find common bad practice such as calling ex.printStacktrace()
However, I'm struggling to find anywhere which gives a valid reason why since surely the stack trace is very useful in tracking down what caused the exception. Things that I am aware of:
A stack trace should never be visible to end users (for user experience and security purposes)
Generating a stack trace is a relatively expensive process (though unlikely to be an issue in most 'exceptional' circumstances)
Many logging frameworks will print the stack trace for you (ours does not and no, we can't change it easily)
Printing the stack trace does not constitute error handling. It should be combined with other information logging and exception handling.
What other reasons are there for avoiding printing a stack trace in your code?
Throwable.printStackTrace() writes the stack trace to System.err PrintStream. The System.err stream and the underlying standard "error" output stream of the JVM process can be redirected by
invoking System.setErr() which changes the destination pointed to by System.err.
or by redirecting the process' error output stream. The error output stream may be redirected to a file/device
whose contents may be ignored by personnel,
the file/device may not be capable of log rotation, inferring that a process restart is required to close the open file/device handle, before archiving the existing contents of the file/device.
or the file/device actually discards all data written to it, as is the case of /dev/null.
Inferring from the above, invoking Throwable.printStackTrace() constitutes valid (not good/great) exception handling behavior, only
if you do not have System.err being reassigned throughout the duration of the application's lifetime,
and if you do not require log rotation while the application is running,
and if accepted/designed logging practice of the application is to write to System.err (and the JVM's standard error output stream).
In most cases, the above conditions are not satisfied. One may not be aware of other code running in the JVM, and one cannot predict the size of the log file or the runtime duration of the process, and a well designed logging practice would revolve around writing "machine-parseable" log files (a preferable but optional feature in a logger) in a known destination, to aid in support.
Finally, one ought to remember that the output of Throwable.printStackTrace() would definitely get interleaved with other content written to System.err (and possibly even System.out if both are redirected to the same file/device). This is an annoyance (for single-threaded apps) that one must deal with, for the data around exceptions is not easily parseable in such an event. Worse, it is highly likely that a multi-threaded application will produce very confusing logs as Throwable.printStackTrace() is not thread-safe.
There is no synchronization mechanism to synchronize the writing of the stack trace to System.err when multiple threads invoke Throwable.printStackTrace() at the same time. Resolving this actually requires your code to synchronize on the monitor associated with System.err (and also System.out, if the destination file/device is the same), and that is rather heavy price to pay for log file sanity. To take an example, the ConsoleHandler and StreamHandler classes are responsible for appending log records to console, in the logging facility provided by java.util.logging; the actual operation of publishing log records is synchronized - every thread that attempts to publish a log record must also acquire the lock on the monitor associated with the StreamHandler instance. If you wish to have the same guarantee of having non-interleaved log records using System.out/System.err, you must ensure the same - the messages are published to these streams in a serializable manner.
Considering all of the above, and the very restricted scenarios in which Throwable.printStackTrace() is actually useful, it often turns out that invoking it is a bad practice.
Extending the argument in the one of the previous paragraphs, it is also a poor choice to use Throwable.printStackTrace in conjunction with a logger that writes to the console. This is in part, due to the reason that the logger would synchronize on a different monitor, while your application would (possibly, if you don't want interleaved log records) synchronize on a different monitor. The argument also holds good when you use two different loggers that write to the same destination, in your application.
You are touching multiple issues here:
1) A stack trace should never be visibile to end users (for user experience and security purposes)
Yes, it should be accessible to diagnose problems of end-users, but end-user should not see them for two reasons:
They are very obscure and unreadable, the application will look very user-unfriendly.
Showing a stack trace to end-user might introduce a potential security risk. Correct me if I'm wrong, PHP actually prints function parameters in stack trace - brilliant, but very dangerous - if you would you get exception while connecting to the database, what are you likely to in the stacktrace?
2) Generating a stack trace is a relatively expensive process (though unlikely to be an issue in most 'exception'al circumstances)
Generating a stack trace happens when the exception is being created/thrown (that's why throwing an exception comes with a price), printing is not that expensive. In fact you can override Throwable#fillInStackTrace() in your custom exception effectively making throwing an exception almost as cheap as a simple GOTO statement.
3) Many logging frameworks will print the stack trace for you (ours does not and no, we can't change it easily)
Very good point. The main issue here is: if the framework logs the exception for you, do nothing (but make sure it does!) If you want to log the exception yourself, use logging framework like Logback or Log4J, to not put them on the raw console because it is very hard to control it.
With logging framework you can easily redirect stack traces to file, console or even send them to a specified e-mail address. With hardcoded printStackTrace() you have to live with the sysout.
4) Printing the stack trace does not constitute error handling. It should be combined with other information logging and exception handling.
Again: log SQLException correctly (with the full stack trace, using logging framework) and show nice: "Sorry, we are currently not able to process your request" message. Do you really think the user is interested in the reasons? Have you seen StackOverflow error screen? It's very humorous, but does not reveal any details. However it ensures the user that the problem will be investigated.
But he will call you immediately and you need to be able to diagnose the problem. So you need both: proper exception logging and user-friendly messages.
To wrap things up: always log exceptions (preferably using logging framework), but do not expose them to the end-user. Think carefully and about error-messages in your GUI, show stack traces only in development mode.
First thing printStackTrace() is not expensive as you state, because the stack trace is filled when the exception is created itself.
The idea is to pass anything that goes to logs through a logger framework, so that the logging can be controlled. Hence instead of using printStackTrace, just use something like Logger.log(msg, exception);
Printing the exception's stack trace in itself doesn't constitute bad practice, but only printing the stace trace when an exception occurs is probably the issue here -- often times, just printing a stack trace is not enough.
Also, there's a tendency to suspect that proper exception handling is not being performed if all that is being performed in a catch block is a e.printStackTrace. Improper handling could mean at best an problem is being ignored, and at worst a program that continues executing in an undefined or unexpected state.
Example
Let's consider the following example:
try {
initializeState();
} catch (TheSkyIsFallingEndOfTheWorldException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
continueProcessingAssumingThatTheStateIsCorrect();
Here, we want to do some initialization processing before we continue on to some processing that requires that the initialization had taken place.
In the above code, the exception should have been caught and properly handled to prevent the program from proceeding to the continueProcessingAssumingThatTheStateIsCorrect method which we could assume would cause problems.
In many instances, e.printStackTrace() is an indication that some exception is being swallowed and processing is allowed to proceed as if no problem every occurred.
Why has this become a problem?
Probably one of the biggest reason that poor exception handling has become more prevalent is due to how IDEs such as Eclipse will auto-generate code that will perform a e.printStackTrace for the exception handling:
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
(The above is an actual try-catch auto-generated by Eclipse to handle an InterruptedException thrown by Thread.sleep.)
For most applications, just printing the stack trace to standard error is probably not going to be sufficient. Improper exception handling could in many instances lead to an application running in a state that is unexpected and could be leading to unexpected and undefined behavior.
I think your list of reasons is a pretty comprehensive one.
One particularly bad example that I've encountered more than once goes like this:
try {
// do stuff
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace(); // and swallow the exception
}
The problem with the above code is that the handling consists entirely of the printStackTrace call: the exception isn't really handled properly nor is it allowed to escape.
On the other hand, as a rule I always log the stack trace whenever there's an unexpected exception in my code. Over the years this policy has saved me a lot of debugging time.
Finally, on a lighter note, God's Perfect Exception.
printStackTrace() prints to a console. In production settings, nobody is ever watching at that. Suraj is correct, should pass this information to a logger.
It is not bad practice because something is 'wrong' about PrintStackTrace(), but because it's 'code smell'.
Most of the time the PrintStackTrace() call is there because somebody failed to properly handle the exception. Once you deal with the exception in a proper way you generally don't care about the StackTrace any more.
Additionally, displaying the stacktrace on stderr is generally only useful when debugging, not in production because very often stderr goes nowhere. Logging it makes more sense. But just replacing PrintStackTrace() with logging the exception still leaves you with an application which failed but keeps running like nothing happened.
In server applications the stacktrace blows up your stdout/stderr file. It may become larger and larger and is filled with useless data because usually you have no context and no timestamp and so on.
e.g. catalina.out when using tomcat as container
As some guys already mentioned here the problem is with the exception swallowing in case you just call e.printStackTrace() in the catch block. It won't stop the thread execution and will continue after the try block as in normal condition.
Instead of that you need either try to recover from the exception (in case it is recoverable), or to throw RuntimeException, or to bubble the exception to the caller in order to avoid silent crashes (for example, due to improper logger configuration).
There are lot of posts on java.lang.Error saying it should not be caught. My question is if it should not be caugth the what is the use of it. Since it is Throwable so we can catch it in try catch. I read some posts like only in some situation it should be caught, how to know these situations.
In short i want to know what can go wrong when i catch Error. What is process behind it. Why they have made Error and its Subclasses? If my app is not supposed to catch them then what catches them? Why my code cannot handle this caught Error? If i simply catch one Error and write some handling code in Catch block, won't that code run?
An Error (especially a subclass of VirtualMachineError) indicates that the JVM has encountered an internal issue - one that means that its internal state may no longer be consistent. If you catch an Error and attempt to recover, future behaviour is undefined. The reason that errors are Throwable is so they can be thrown - eg you may do it your self for errors in a native library that can't be recovered from (eg the library could have written to JVM memory, or corrupted its internal static state). The same stack walking and stack trace producing machinery is used in the case of all Throwables - it would be silly to have another mechanism to do the same thing.
Most errors in the JVM that are not VirtualMachineErrors are situations where a native library could have corrupted its static state - eg AWTError, ZipError.
However there are some rare cases where catching an Error is sane: AssertionError in a testing framework, and LinkageError where you have to deal with the absence / presence of different versions of libraries at runtime. This is a pretty rare requirement and may be better handled through reflection.
All rules have exceptions (except this one).
Even if everybody say you should not, there are plenty of cases where it's totally appropriate to catch those java.lang.Error. The logic behind the rule was: "do not try to continue running your application after a fatal condition was detected". You therefore must be careful before doing something after such an error is thrown. It is possible that the system might not be able to continue its task afterward.
It might be OK for a servlet to catch OutOfMemoryError, log the error and destroy the session. Maybe the problem was with that precise session. Destroying it would restore the memory and allow other users to continue using the system. However, you should have a mechanism to track those errors in real-time in order to:
Fix programming errors
(AssertionError, StackOverflowError)
Fix configuration errors
(UnsatisfiedLinkError)
Correct JVM sizing parameters (OutOfMemoryError)
This kind of handling should be done very "high" in the call stack (i.e. near the main()), where the main loop (or equivalent) is performed. I think it's not a good practice to catch Error in deep code, you should at least rethrow the error in those cases.
Similar question already answered here - When to catch java.lang.Error?
Basically, you should never attempt to catch it as its thrown on fairly serious issues like when your thread has dead for some reason, and is not recoverable.
There are however sometimes the need to catch the error when dealing with the framework itself as stated in the above URL.
We recently had a problem with a Java server application where the application was throwing Errors which were not caught because Error is a separate subclass of Throwable and we were only catching Exceptions.
We solved the immediate problem by catching Throwables rather than Exceptions, but this got me thinking as to why you would ever want to catch Exceptions, rather than Throwables, because you would then miss the Errors.
So, why would you want to catch Exceptions, when you can catch Throwables?
From the Java API documentation:
The class Exception and its subclasses are a form of Throwable that indicates conditions that a reasonable application might want to catch.
An Error is a subclass of Throwable that indicates serious problems that a reasonable application should not try to catch.
Errors usually are low-level (eg., raised by the virtual machine) and should not be caught by the application since reasonable continuation might not be possible.
It all depends a bit on what you're going to do with an Error once you've caught it. In general, catching Errors probably shouldn't be seen as part of your "normal" exception flow. If you do catch one, you shouldn't be thinking about "carrying on as though nothing has happened", because the JVM (and various libraries) will use Errors as a way of signalling that "something really serious has happened and we need to shut down as soon as possible". In general, it's best to listen to them when they're telling you the end is nigh.
Another issue is that the recoverability or not from an Error may depend on the particular virtual machine, which is something you may or not have control over.
That said, there are a few corner cases where it is safe and/or desirable to catch Errors, or at least certain subclasses:
There are cases where you really do want to stop the normal course of flow: e.g. if you're in a Servlet, you might not want the Servlet runner's default exception handler to announce to the world that you've had an OutOfMemoryError, whether or not you can recover from it.
Occasionally, an Error will be thrown in cases where the JVM can cleanly recover from the cause of the error. For example, if an OutOfMemoryError occurs while attempting to allocate an array, in Hotspot at least, it seems you can safely recover from this. (There are of course other cases where an OutOfMemoryError could be thrown where it isn't safe to try and plough on.)
So the bottom line is: if you do catch Throwable/Error rather than Exception, it should be a well-defined case where you know you're "doing something special".
Edit: Possibly this is obvious, but I forgot to say that in practice, the JVM might not actually invoke your catch clause on an Error. I've definitely seen Hotspot glibly gloss over attempts to catch certain OutOfMemoryErrors and NoClassDefFoundError.
A lot of the other answers are looking at things too narrowly.
As they say, if you are writing application code, you should not catch Throwable. You can't do anything about it, so allowing the surrounding system (JVM or framework) to handle these issues is best.
However, if you are writing "system code", like a framework or other low-level code then you may very well want to catch Throwable. The reason is to attempt to report the exception, perhaps in a log file. In some cases your logging will fail, but in most cases it will succeed and you will have the information you need to resolve the issue. Once you have made your logging attempt you should then either rethrow, kill the current thread, or exit the entire JVM.
Usually Errors are problems you cannot possibly recover from, like OutOfMemoryError. There's nothing to do by catching them, so you should usually let them escape, and bring down the virtual machine.
I'll go a slightly different route from others.
There are many cases where you would want to catch Throwable (mainly to log/report that something evil happened).
However, you need to be careful and rethrow anything that you cannot deal with.
This is especially true of ThreadDeath.
If you ever catch Throwable, be sure to do the following:
try {
...
} catch (SomeExceptionYouCanDoSomethingWith e) {
// handle it
} catch (ThreadDeath t) {
throw t;
} catch (Throwable t) {
// log & rethrow
}
There's at least one case when I think you may have to catch a throwable or a generic exception - if you're running a separate thread to perform a task, you may want to know if the "run" method of the thread has catched some exception or not. In that case, you probably will do something like this:
public void run() {
try {
...
}
catch(Throwable t) {
threadCompletionError = t;
}
}
I am really not sure if it's the best approach, but it works. And I was having a "ClassNotFound" error being raised by the JVM, and it's an error and not an exception. If I let the exception be thrown, I am not sure how to catch it in the calling thread (probably there's a method but I don't know about it - yet).
As for the ThreadDeath method, don't call the "Thread.stop()" method. Call Thread.interrupt and have your thread to check if it was interrupted by someone.
This post won't make the "checked exceptions are bad" people happy. However, what I am basing my answer on is how Java exceptions are intended to be used as defined by the people that created the language.
Quick reference chart:
Throwable - never catch this
Error - indicates a VM error - never catch this
RuntimeException - indicated a programmer error - never catch this
Exception - never catch this
The reason you should not catch Exception is that it catches all of the subclasses, including RuntimeException.
The reason you should not catch Throwable is that it catches all of the subclasses, including Error and Exception.
There are exceptions (no pun intended) to the above "rules":
Code you are working with (from a 3rd party) throws Throwable or Exception
You are running untrusted code that could cause your program to crash if it thew an exception.
For the second one usually it is enough to wrap main, event handling code, and threads with the catch to Throwable and then check the actual type of the exception and deal with it as appropriate.
Do NOT ever catch Throwable or Error and you should generally not simply catch a generic Exception either. Errors are generally things that most reasonable programs cannot possibly recover from. If you know what is going on, you might be able to recover from one specific error, but in that case, you should catch only that one particular error and not all errors in general.
A good reason not to catch Error is because of ThreadDeath. ThreadDeath is a fairly normal occurrence that can theoretically be thrown from anywhere (other processes like the JVM itself can generate it), and the whole point of it is to kill your thread. ThreadDeath is explicitly an Error rather than an Exception because too many people catch all Exceptions. If you ever were to catch ThreadDeath, you must rethrow it so that your thread actually dies.
If you have control over the source, it should probably be restructured to throw an Exception rather than an Error. If you don't, you should probably call to the vendor and complain. Errors should be reserved for only things that are terminal with no possible way to recover from them.
Normally when programming, you should only catch a specific exception (such as IOException). In a lot of programs you can see a very toplevel
try {
...
} catch(Exception e) {
...
}
That catches all errors which could be recoverable and all those which indicate a bug in your code, e.g. InvalidArgumentException, NullPointerException. You can then automatically send an eMail, display a message box or whatever you like, since the JavaVM itself is still working fine.
Everything derived from Error is something very bad, you can't do anything against. The question is, if it makes sense to catch a OutOfMemoryError or a VirtualMachineError. (It is a error in the JavaVM itself, probably you can't even display a message box or send an eMail then)
You should probably not a class derived from Error, you should derive from Exception or RuntimeException.
I know it might be counter-intuitive, but just because you can catch all sorts of Exceptions and Throwables and Errors does not mean you should.
Over-aggressive catching of java.lang.Exception can lead to some serious bugs in applications - because unexpected Exceptions never bubble up, are never caught during development/testing, etc.
Best practice: only catch
Exceptions that you can handle
Exceptions that are necessary to catch
In general it would be reasonable to try to catch Errors if only so that can be properly reported.
However, I believe there are cases when it would be appropriate to catch an Error and not report it. I'm referring to UnsatisfiedLinkError. In JAI the library uses some native libraries to implement most of the operators for performance reasons, however if the library fails to load (doesnt exist, wrong format, unsupported platform) the library will still function because it will fall back into a java only mode.
Slightly off topic, but you may also want to look at this very good article about exceptions.
Why not catch them all? Then log them, at least you know you have an error. So better catch Throwable/s than Exception/s only.
There is no point in catching Error.
Errors are used to indicate something went really wrong in your application and it should be restarted.
For instance one common error is
java.lang.OutOfMemoryError
There is NOTHING you can do when that happens. Is already too late, the JVM has exhausted all its options to get more memory but it is impossible.
See this other answer to understand more about the three kinds of exceptions.