Let's say I am designing an API for storing passwords. According to Effective Java it is a good idea to use throw clauses to show checked exceptions, however by having a throw clause that throws a SQLException, which is a checked exception, then I am revealing the underlying implementation details of my API and thus I will be unable to change the implementation details of my API at a later stage. One of the pros to throwing a checked exception is that the programmer who uses the API should be able to handle the exception in a manner of their choosing. Which of these two methods should I choose to do, add a throw clause which reveals the implementation or hide it or use a different approach?
Your motivation is correct for not "leaking" SQLException to the users of your class.
The fact that you're using SQL could be considered an implementation detail. You may even swap SQL persistence for say, an in-memory one at a later time, and this change shouldn't impact the users of your class.
If you are inclined to use checked exceptions, I would define your own exception type (say, PasswordStoreException -- just an example name). You can use it to wrap the original exception that was thrown, e.g.:
try {
// do whatever
} catch (SQLException ex) {
throw new PasswordStoreException(ex);
}
It is today considered bad design for an API to declare checked exceptions. If you have ever used such an API, you should already know why.
In any case your API should never throw (let alone declare) exceptions belonging to other APIs. If you do that, you hang a completely unrelated dependency on your client's back. The only "exception" to this rule are JDK's standard exceptions like NPE, ISE and the like.
Catch the SQLException, and wrap it into your own exception:
try {
// JDBC code
}
catch (SQLException e) {
throw new MyException("Error persisting the secret", e); // choose a better name, of course
}
Whether this exception should be a checked exception or a runtime exception depends on what the caller can do about it. If it's recoverable (which, I think, is not the case here), it should be a checked exception. If it's not recoverable (the caller can just display an error message), then it should be a runtime exception.
If it's a checked exception, you have no choice; the exception MUST be declared in the throws clause of the method.
As is, it is always a good idea to throw your own exception checked/unchecked. But before that, try to fix the underlying exception if possible. I always prefer the below way,
try {
// JDBC code
}
catch (SQLException e) {
// try to solve the exception at API level
bollean solvable = trySolveException(e);
if (!solvable) {
// Alert the admin, or log the error statement for further debugging.
mailClient.sendMailToDBAdmin("Some issue storing password", e);
// or
LOG.severe("some issue in storing password " + e.toString);
throw MyException("A request/logstatement is logged on your behalf regarding the exception", e);
}
LOG.info("The exception is solved");
}
finally {
// don't forget to free your resources - to avoid garbage and memory leaks, incase you have solved the issue in trySolveException(e).
}
So,
1) You don't expose the SRQException directly, but you throw your own version of the exception.
2) You tried to solve the exception once and if not you alerted somehow - through a mail or a log statement.
3) Finally, you ve released all the resources if you succeed in solving the exception.
The finally clause can be avoided if you use the new Java7's try with resource close option.
For whether to throw checked or unchecked exception, I will give you an example
1) Say an exceptions like NPE - they are programmatic errors and the developer should be more responsible to have not created a NullPointer. You don't expect your code to account for such careless errors and put a try(NPE), catch(NPE). So throw a unchecked exceptions.
2) On the other hand the exceptions like SQL exceptions are at the rare cases, account for some external dependency. So, better throw a user defined checked exceptions. And the user can determine if he can connect to the backup SQL server if any.
3) There are another clause of exceptions, where the program cannot continue furhter. Say a Memory Out of Bounds. They should be thrown as Errors.
Try this..
fillInStackTrace() method is called to re-initialize the stack trace data in the newly created throwable. Will be helpful in masking the info about the exception when tries to access the API.
Related
I am trying to execute a sql statement in Listener's contextInitialized method, but when I run gretty local server, it throws RuntimeException error. I can't figure out, why. It doesn't run into any errors when i comment out ps.executeQuery();.
#Override
public void contextInitialized(ServletContextEvent sce){
ServletContext sc = sce.getServletContext();
DataSource pool = new ConnectionPoolFactory().createConnectionPool();
String sql = "create table test (id int);";
try (Connection conn = pool.getConnection();
PreparedStatement ps = conn.prepareStatement(sql)) {
ps.executeQuery();
} catch (SQLException e) {
throw new RuntimeException();
}
}
"Doctor, it hurts when I press here!"
Well, stop doing that then.
This:
} catch (SQLException e) {
throw new RuntimeException();
}
is in a word insane. You're taking a useful error which includes 5 convenient aspects that will help you figure out what went wrong:
The actual type of the exception (Could be a subclass of SQLException; 'DatabaseNotAvailableException', for example)
The message associated with it
The stack trace which points precisely at the line of code that caused it
The cause - exceptions can have causes, which are themselves exceptions (well, throwables). The cause is often more useful than the exception itself.
The chain of swallowed exceptions. This is rarely useful.
You've decided to pitch them all into the garbage, to replace it with a single RuntimeException that gives no useful information of any sort or kind whatsoever.
Do not do that.
Proper exception handling involves being a lot less scared of the throws clause on methods. Got a method that does DB stuff, and the design of this method is clearly indicated to do so (if the method is named 'query' or otherwise contains any word that obviously indicates SQL, the answer is clearly: Yes, it does), then that method should be declared to throws SQLException, for example.
Secondarily, in the rare cases where throwing it onwards does not work out, if you catch an exception, you do not want to just log it and continue, and you do not want to throw some other exception without setting up a cause first. This is the standard 'I do not know what to do and I do not want to spend any further time on thinking about it' exception handler:
} catch (ThingIDoNotWantToThinkAbout e) {
throw new RuntimeException("Unhandled", e);
}
That , e is crucial, it sets up the actual exception as cause, so that you actually see it in your stack traces and logs. It is very common to see a standard exception handling of e.printStackTrace(). Do not do this - 90% of java examples are bad. This causes all sorts of problems, because the 'logs' go to standarderr (which is a lot less flexible than letting them go to the exception handler of the context within which you are operating. For example, if writing a web handler, e.printStackTrace() just dumps stack. Throwing an exception upwards will dump stack and allow the framework to add information about the request that triggered the problem, and serve up a suitable HTTO status 500 error page. Also, by just running printStackTrace, the code will continue execution, which is obviously not what you want: Something went wrong - continuing blindly onward will either guarantee that your software silently does the wrong thing, or causes further exceptions, thus resulting in a single error causing hundreds of stack traces flooding your syserr.
Once you've fixed this problem here and everywhere else in your code, the actual problem will most likely be clear as day. Something about the SQL server being down or a syntax error in your SQL.
Is it a bad practice to catch Throwable?
For example something like this:
try {
// Some code
} catch(Throwable e) {
// handle the exception
}
Is this a bad practice or we should be as specific as possible?
You need to be as specific as possible. Otherwise unforeseen bugs might creep away this way.
Besides, Throwable covers Error as well and that's usually no point of return. You don't want to catch/handle that, you want your program to die immediately so that you can fix it properly.
This is a bad idea. In fact, even catching Exception is usually a bad idea. Let's consider an example:
try {
inputNumber = NumberFormat.getInstance().formatNumber( getUserInput() );
} catch(Throwable e) {
inputNumber = 10; //Default, user did not enter valid number
}
Now, let's say that getUserInput() blocks for a while, and another thread stops your thread in the worst possible way ( it calls thread.stop() ). Your catch block will catch a ThreadDeath Error. This is super bad. The behavior of your code after catching that Exception is largely undefined.
A similar problem occurs with catching Exception. Maybe getUserInput() failed because of an InterruptException, or a permission denied exception while trying to log the results, or all sorts of other failures. You have no idea what went wrong, as because of that, you also have no idea how to fix the problem.
You have three better options:
1 -- Catch exactly the Exception(s) you know how to handle:
try {
inputNumber = NumberFormat.getInstance().formatNumber( getUserInput() );
} catch(ParseException e) {
inputNumber = 10; //Default, user did not enter valid number
}
2 -- Rethrow any exception you run into and don't know how to handle:
try {
doSomethingMysterious();
} catch(Exception e) {
log.error("Oh man, something bad and mysterious happened",e);
throw e;
}
3 -- Use a finally block so you don't have to remember to rethrow:
Resources r = null;
try {
r = allocateSomeResources();
doSomething(r);
} finally {
if(r!=null) cleanUpResources(r);
}
Also be aware that when you catch Throwable, you can also catch InterruptedException which requires a special treatment. See Dealing with InterruptedException for more details.
If you only want to catch unchecked exceptions, you might also consider this pattern
try {
...
} catch (RuntimeException exception) {
//do something
} catch (Error error) {
//do something
}
This way, when you modify your code and add a method call that can throw a checked exception, the compiler will remind you of that and then you can decide what to do for this case.
straight from the javadoc of the Error class (which recommends not to catch these):
* An <code>Error</code> is a subclass of <code>Throwable</code>
* that indicates serious problems that a reasonable application
* should not try to catch. Most such errors are abnormal conditions.
* The <code>ThreadDeath</code> error, though a "normal" condition,
* is also a subclass of <code>Error</code> because most applications
* should not try to catch it.
* A method is not required to declare in its <code>throws</code>
* clause any subclasses of <code>Error</code> that might be thrown
* during the execution of the method but not caught, since these
* errors are abnormal conditions that should never occur.
*
* #author Frank Yellin
* #version %I%, %G%
* #see java.lang.ThreadDeath
* #since JDK1.0
It's not a bad practice if you absolutely cannot have an exception bubble out of a method.
It's a bad practice if you really can't handle the exception. Better to add "throws" to the method signature than just catch and re-throw or, worse, wrap it in a RuntimeException and re-throw.
Catching Throwable is sometimes necessary if you are using libraries that throw Errors over-enthusiastically, otherwise your library may kill your application.
However, it would be best under these circumstances to specify only the specific errors thrown by the library, rather than all Throwables.
The question is a bit vague; are you asking "is it OK to catch Throwable", or "is it OK to catch a Throwable and not do anything"? Many people here answered the latter, but that's a side issue; 99% of the time you should not "consume" or discard the exception, whether you are catching Throwable or IOException or whatever.
If you propagate the exception, the answer (like the answer to so many questions) is "it depends". It depends on what you're doing with the exception—why you're catching it.
A good example of why you would want to catch Throwable is to provide some sort of cleanup if there is any error. For example in JDBC, if an error occurs during a transaction, you would want to roll back the transaction:
try {
…
} catch(final Throwable throwable) {
connection.rollback();
throw throwable;
}
Note that the exception is not discarded, but propagated.
But as a general policy, catching Throwable because you don't have a reason and are too lazy to see which specific exceptions are being thrown is poor form and a bad idea.
Throwable is the base class for all classes than can be thrown (not only exceptions). There is little you can do if you catch an OutOfMemoryError or KernelError (see When to catch java.lang.Error?)
catching Exceptions should be enough.
it depends on your logic or to be more specific to your options / possibilities. If there is any specific exception that you can possibly react on in a meaningful way, you could catch it first and do so.
If there isn't and you're sure you will do the same thing for all exceptions and errors (for example exit with an error-message), than it is not problem to catch the throwable.
Usually the first case holds and you wouldn't catch the throwable. But there still are plenty of cases where catching it works fine.
Although it is described as a very bad practice, you may sometimes find rare cases that it not only useful but also mandatory. Here are two examples.
In a web application where you must show a meaning full error page to user.
This code make sure this happens as it is a big try/catch around all your request handelers ( servlets, struts actions, or any controller ....)
try{
//run the code which handles user request.
}catch(Throwable ex){
LOG.error("Exception was thrown: {}", ex);
//redirect request to a error page.
}
}
As another example, consider you have a service class which serves fund transfer business. This method returns a TransferReceipt if transfer is done or NULL if it couldn't.
String FoundtransferService.doTransfer( fundtransferVO);
Now imaging you get a List of fund transfers from user and you must use above service to do them all.
for(FundTransferVO fundTransferVO : fundTransferVOList){
FoundtransferService.doTransfer( foundtransferVO);
}
But what will happen if any exception happens? You should not stop, as one transfer may have been success and one may not, you should keep go on through all user List, and show the result to each transfer. So you end up with this code.
for(FundTransferVO fundTransferVO : fundTransferVOList){
FoundtransferService.doTransfer( foundtransferVO);
}catch(Throwable ex){
LOG.error("The transfer for {} failed due the error {}", foundtransferVO, ex);
}
}
You can browse lots of open source projects to see that the throwable is really cached and handled. For example here is a search of tomcat,struts2 and primefaces:
https://github.com/apache/tomcat/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=catch%28Throwable
https://github.com/apache/struts/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=catch%28Throwable
https://github.com/primefaces/primefaces/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=catch%28Throwable
Generally speaking you want to avoid catching Errors but I can think of (at least) two specific cases where it's appropriate to do so:
You want to shut down the application in response to errors, especially AssertionError which is otherwise harmless.
Are you implementing a thread-pooling mechanism similar to ExecutorService.submit() that requires you to forward exceptions back to the user so they can handle it.
Throwable is the superclass of all the errors and excetions.
If you use Throwable in a catch clause, it will not only catch all exceptions, it will also catch all errors. Errors are thrown by the JVM to indicate serious problems that are not intended to be handled by an application. Typical examples for that are the OutOfMemoryError or the StackOverflowError. Both are caused by situations that are outside of the control of the application and can’t be handled. So you shouldn't catch Throwables unless your are pretty confident that it will only be an exception reside inside Throwable.
If we use throwable, then it covers Error as well and that's it.
Example.
public class ExceptionTest {
/**
* #param args
*/
public static void m1() {
int i = 10;
int j = 0;
try {
int k = i / j;
System.out.println(k);
} catch (Throwable th) {
th.printStackTrace();
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
m1();
}
}
Output:
java.lang.ArithmeticException: / by zero
at com.infy.test.ExceptionTest.m1(ExceptionTest.java:12)
at com.infy.test.ExceptionTest.main(ExceptionTest.java:25)
A more differentiated answer would be: it depends.
The difference between an Exception and an Error is that an Exception is a state that has to be expected, while an Error is an unexpected state, which is usually fatal. Errors usually cannot be recovered from and require resetting major parts of the program or even the whole JVM.
Catching Exceptions is something you should always do to handle states that are likely to happen, which is why it is enforced by the JVM. I.E. opening a file can cause a FileNotFoundException, calling a web resource can result in a TimeoutException, and so on. Your code needs to be prepared to handle those situations as they can commonly occur. How you handle those is up to you, there is no need to recover from everything, but your application should not boot back to desktop just because a web-server took a little longer to answer.
Catching Errors is something you should do only if it is really necessary. Generally you cannot recover from Errors and should not try to, unless you have a good reason to. Reasons to catch Errors are to close critical resources that would otherwise be left open, or if you i.E. have a server that runs plugins, which can then stop or restart the plugin that caused the error. Other reasons are to log additional information that might help to debug that error later, in which case you of course should rethrow it to make sure the application terminates properly.
Rule of thumb: Unless you have an important reason to catch Errors, don't.
Therefore use catch (Throwable t) only in such really important situation, otherwise stick to catch (Exception e)
I would like to know how I can avoid try-catch statements. Right now I have a Database handler and every time I run a command I have to surround it in a try block like so:
try {
while(levelData.next()) {
if(levelData.getInt("level") == nextLevel) return levelData.getInt("exp");
}
} catch (SQLException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
Can I make it so the actual function throws the exception or something? Rather than having to manually put all these try's in? Its mostly just an aesthetic problem as these try blocks look ugly.
You can throw an exception instead:
public void myMethod() throws SQLException {
while(levelData.next()) {
if(levelData.getInt("level") == nextLevel)
return levelData.getInt("exp");
}
}
Right now I have a Database handler and every time I run a command I
have to surround it in a try block like so...
I think other answers fail to address the above problems. When I started programming with Java, I hated it when my program was filled with try-catch blocks for SQL query statements.
The way I work around it is to use a DAO-level-layer to handle the exceptions. For example, If my program need to access a User table, I create a UserDAO class. Then the queries are created and exceptions are caught in that DAO class.
Every time an exception occurs, I do the logging needed and throw a custom-specified Unchecked Exception, e.g. DatabaseErrorException. The main difference between an unchecked exception and a checked exception (like SQLException) is that you aren't forced to catch or throw it, so it will not fill your code with the throws statement.
(Yes, you can use throws to avoid using try-catch, but you must handle it somewhere anyway, and think about your functions having throws everywhere.)
Then we can have a global filter at the highest level of the application to catch all these exceptions which propagate through the program. Usually a database error can't be recovered from, so here we only need to display the error to the users.
You can make a method throw an exception with the throws keyword, rather than using a try- catch block, but at some point the exception needs to be handled. What I have found most annoying is multiple catch statements, but if you use JDK >= 1.7 they have a multi-catch option available. For exception logging you can use the log4j library.
For my Java application, I am creating an instance of a user information object and populating it with a service that I don't control the source for.
The code looks like this:
// username given as parameter
UserInfo ui = new UserInfo();
try {
DirectoryUser du = LDAPService.findUser(username);
if (du!=null) {
ui.setUserInfo(du.getUserInfo());
}
} catch (Exception e) {
// Whatever
}
If LDAPService.findUser() can't locate a user, it will throw a NullPointerException and grind the rest of my application to a stop. It's okay if the user information isn't populated, so I want to be able to continue without causing everything else to start throwing exceptions.
Is there a way to do this?
I've upvoted Amir Afghani's answer, which seems to be the only one as of yet that actually answers the question.
But I would have written it like this instead:
UserInfo ui = new UserInfo();
DirectoryUser du = null;
try {
du = LDAPService.findUser(username);
} catch (NullPointerException npe) {
// It's fine if findUser throws a NPE
}
if (du != null) {
ui.setUserInfo(du.getUserInfo());
}
Of course, it depends on whether or not you want to catch NPEs from the ui.setUserInfo() and du.getUserInfo() calls.
You could catch the NullPointerException explicitly and ignore it - though its generally not recommended. You should not, however, ignore all exceptions as you're currently doing.
UserInfo ui = new UserInfo();
try {
DirectoryUser du = LDAPService.findUser(username);
if (du!=null) {
ui.setUserInfo(du.getUserInfo());
}
} catch (NullPointerException npe) {
// Lulz # your NPE
Logger.log("No user info for " +username+ ", will find some way to cope");
}
You are already doing it in your code. Run this example below. The catch will "handle" the exception, and you can move forward, assuming whatever you caught and handled did not break code down the road which you did not anticipate.
try{
throw new Exception();
}catch (Exception ex){
ex.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Made it!");
However, you should always handle an exception properly. You can get yourself into some pretty messy situations and write difficult to maintain code by "ignoring" exceptions. You should only do this if you are actually handling whatever went wrong with the exception to the point that it really does not affect the rest of the program.
It's generally considered a bad idea to ignore exceptions. Usually, if it's appropriate, you want to either notify the user of the issue (if they would care) or at the very least, log the exception, or print the stack trace to the console.
However, if that's truly not necessary (you're the one making the decision) then no, there's no other way to ignore an exception that forces you to catch it. The only revision, in that case, that I would suggest is explicitly listing the the class of the Exceptions you're ignoring, and some comment as to why you're ignoring them, rather than simply ignoring any exception, as you've done in your example.
You are actually ignoring exception in your code. But I suggest you to reconsider.
Here is a quote from Coding Crimes: Ignoring Exceptions
For a start, the exception should be logged at the very least, not
just written out to the console. Also, in most cases, the exception
should be thrown back to the caller for them to deal with. If it
doesn't need to be thrown back to the caller, then the exception
should be handled. And some comments would be nice too.
The usual excuse for this type of code is "I didn't have time", but
there is a ripple effect when code is left in this state. Chances are
that most of this type of code will never get out in the final
production. Code reviews or static analysis tools should catch this
error pattern. But that's no excuse, all this does is add time to the
maintainance and debugging of the software.
Even if you are ignoring it I suggest you to use specific exception names instead of superclass name. ie., Use NullPointerException instead of Exception in your catch clause.
You can write a try - catch block around the line you want to have ignored.
Like in the example code of yours. If you just continue your code below the closing bracket of the catch block everythings fine.
LDAPService should contain method like LDAPService.isExists(String userName) use it to prevent NPE to be thrown. If is not - this could be a workaround, but use Logging to post some warning..
Printing the STACK trace, logging it or send message to the user, are very bad ways to process the exceptions. Does any one can describe solutions to fix the exception in proper steps then can trying the broken instruction again?
In the following scenario, I was trying to see how to handle this code and it how it relates to Runtimexception. I have read that is generally better to throw runtime exceptions as opposed to rely on static exceptions. And maybe even better to catch a static checked exception and throw an unchecked exception.
Are there any scenarios where it is OK to catch a static exception, possibly the catch-all Exception and just handle the exception. Possibly log an error message and continue on.
In the code below, in the execute1 method and execute2 method, let us say there is volatile code, do you catch the static exception and then rethrow? Or possibly if there are other errors:
if (null == someObj) { throw new RuntimeException(); }
Is this an approach you use?
Pseudo Code:
public class SomeWorkerObject {
private String field1 = "";
private String field2 = "";
public setField1() { }
public setField2() { }
// Do I throw runtime exception here?
public execute1() {
try {
// Do something with field 1
// Do something with field 2
} catch(SomeException) {
throw new RuntimeException();
}
}
// Do I throw runtime exception here?
public execute2() {
try {
// Do something with field 1
// Do something with field 2
} catch(SomeException) {
throw new RuntimeException();
}
}
}
public class TheWeb {
public void processWebRequest() {
SomeWorkerObject obj = new SomeWorkerObject();
obj.setField1("something");
obj.setField2("something");
obj.execute1();
obj.execute2();
// Possibility that runtime exception thrown?
doSomethingWith(obj);
}
}
I have a couple of problems with this code. There are times when I don't want a runtimeexception to be thrown because then execution stops in the calling method. It seems if I trap the errors in the method, maybe I can continue. But I will know if I can continue later on the program.
In the example above, what if obj.execute1() throws a Runtimeexception, then the code exits?
Edited: This guy seems to answer a lot of my questions, but I still want to hear your opinions.
http://misko.hevery.com/2009/09/16/checked-exceptions-i-love-you-but-you-have-to-go/
"Checked exceptions force me to write catch blocks which are meaningless: more code, harder to read, and higher chance that I will mess up the rethrow logic and eat the exception."
When catching an exception and throwing RuntimeException instead, it is important to set the original exception as a cause for the RuntimeException. i.e.
throw new RuntimeException(originalException).
Otherwise you will not know what was the problem in the first place.
Rethrowing checked exceptions as unchecked exceptions should only be done if you are sure that the checked exception is not to be expected.
Here's a typical example:
try {
hash = MessageDigest.getInstance("MD5").digest(string.getBytes("UTF-8"));
} catch (NoSuchAlgorithmException e) {
// Unexpected exception. "MD5" is just hardcoded and supported.
throw new RuntimeException("MD5 should be supported?", e);
} catch (UnsupportedEncodingException e) {
// Unexpected exception. "UTF-8" is just hardcoded and supported.
throw new RuntimeException("UTF-8 should be supported?", e);
}
There are times when I don't want a
runtimeexception to be thrown because
then execution stops in the calling
method. It seems if I trap the errors
in the method, maybe I can continue.
But I will know if I can continue
later on the program.
You have the right idea. The advice about throwing RuntimeException is that it doesn't require the caller to use a try-block or a 'throws' clause.
If your code can recover from an exception than it really should catch it and not throw anything.
One of the first rules about exceptions is to not abuse them to pass state in your application. They should be used for exceptional situations, not as alternative return values.
The second rule is to catch exceptions at the level you process them. Catch and rethrow does not add much. Any cleanup code in your method should be done in a finally block.
In my opinion catching checked exceptions and rethrowing them as runtime exceptions is abusing the system. It feels like working around the "limitations" of design by contract instead of using those "limitations" to get a more robust application.
Whether or not to handle an exception or simply rethrow it depends on your use case.
For example, if you're reading a file to load data into your application, and some IO error occurs, you're unlikely to recover from the error, so rethrowing the error to the top and consequently terminating the application isn't a bad course of action.
Conversely, if you're anticipating recoverable errors then you should absolutely catch and handle the errors. For example, you may have users entering data in a form. If they enter data incorrectly, your input processing code may throw an exception (e.g. NumberFormatException when parsing a malformed number string). Your code should catch these exceptions and return an error the user, prompting for correct input.
On an additional note, it's probably bad form to wrap all your exceptions with RuntimeException. If your code is going to be reused somewhere else, it is very helpful to have checked exceptions to signify that your code can fail in certain ways.
For example, assume your code is to parse configuration data from a file. Obviously, an IO error may occur, so you will have to catch an IOException somewhere in your code. You probably won't be able to do anything about the error, so you will have to rethrow it. However, someone calling into your code may well be able to handle such an error, for example by backing off to configuration defaults if the configuration can't be loaded from the file. By marking your API with checked exceptions, someone using your code can clearly see where an error may occur, and can thus write the error handling code at the appropriate place. If instead you simply throw a RuntimeException, the developer using your code won't be aware of possible errors until they creep up during testing.