Develop Reference

Why doesn't Java have setMessage in Exception/Throwable classes?

I am not able to understand why Java doesn't allow to change exception message of an exception of type Exception (or its superclass Throwable) once it has been created. It allows to change the stackTrace using setStackTrace but not the message.
The use case I have seems genuine to me and would appreciate some alternative.
Use case
I have a controller service X that calls let's say 10 other dependent services. To make debugging easy, if a dependent service throws some exception we want to surface some identifiers from service X to its upstream to identify the failed request easily. For this we have requestId which we create and set for each dependency.
Now to avoid duplication across all dependent services and simplify code, we can create a common interceptor that allows us to do some work before and after each call. Something like -
// do some work
requestId = getRequestId(); // create or somehow get requestId
dependentService.setRequestId(requestId);
try {
dependentService.call();
}
catch (Exception e) {
e.setMessage(e.getMessage() + ... + requestId);
throw e;
}
//do some work
But Java doesn't allow us to set message. At the same time, we want to preserve the exception and its type (which could be any of the custom types defined by dependent services), so I don't want to do something like throw new Exception(e.getMessage() + ...)

It's not really what it's meant for, but you could attach another exception with addSuppressed:
} catch (Exception e) {
e.addSuppressed(new ExtraInfoException(...));
throw e;
}
where ... contains the extra info you want to include.
The advantage of this over adding to the exception message is that you can define your ExtraInfoException so that it has the info you want in fields, rather than having to parse it back out of the exception message.
With that said, a more idiomatic way to attach more exception info it would be:
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new ExtraInfoException(e, ...);
}
which has exactly the same advantage of allowing you to return structured information, with the additional advantage that you can catch ExtraInfoException directly, rather than catching Exception and then hunting for the extra info reflectively.

Why doesn't Java have setMessage in Exception/Throwable classes?
The answer to your question is that they (the library designers) did not think that changing a message on an exception was a useful thing to do.
To a large degree1, the designers have taken the view that they shouldn't design the APIs to directly support all possible use-cases ... including the obscure ones that almost nobody will encounter. Like your one2.
And in your case, there are other ways to achieve what you are trying to do; see the other answers.
I did a quick search of the Java bugs database to see if someone else had put in an RFE to request a setMessage method for Throwable or Exception. I couldn't find anything. If your requirement was even slightly common, there would probably be an RFE with an explanation of why it was declined.
1 - Obviously, there are exceptions to this, but that is beside the point.
2 - Obviously you would disagree that your use-case is obscure, but that that is also beside the point. The question is why they haven't implemented this, not whether they were wrong. (Asking / debating whether they were wrong is off-topic, because it is a matter of opinion.)

Resetting a message it's some kind of rewriting the history. You have a catch block when you catch exception and handle them. If you need to throw an exception during the handling, it's a different problem and an exception should be different.
} catch (SomeException e) {
// here we have SomeException and we want to handle it.
// if we can't we throw a new one, because we have a problem with handling.
// if the handling problem cause is SomeException we put it at the cause.
throw new AnotherException("with some message", e);
}
And in the stacks trace we will see that we have AnotherException because of SomeException which gives us information about the root of problem.

Just simply throw new instance like this:
try {
...
} catch(Exception ex) {
throw new Exception ("new message", ex);
}

Is executing code inside of an exception bad in this case?

I have this specific scenario:
my exceptions have a code and a localized message
The thrower just knows the code
The catcher expects a localized message
The localization is inside of a DB table
Would it be wrong something like this:
public class MyException{
public MyException(int code){
try{
this.message = db.selectMessage(code);
}catch(Exception ex){
this.message = "";
}
}
}
This would completely hide from the thrower the fact that the message is localized.
Alternatively I should go with something like this:
public class ExceptionUtils{
public static throwMyException(int code) throws MyException{
String message = db.selectMessage(code);
throw new MyException(code, message);
}
}
But this requires the thrower to know about this util.

I would suggest using ResourceBundle class as it is widely accepted way for localization. This way you store your messages in files as oppose to DB. Also reading your messages from those files is handled by JVM and you don't have to write your own code for it. However, if you insist on using DB, I would sudgest to read all your messages from DB into file system or onto your memory during your app initialization and then you don't have to read from DB and risk DB connectivity failure for each exception.

This is a better approach:
public class MyException extends Exception {
private int code;
public MyException(String message, int code) {
super(message);
this.code = code;
}
public int getCode() {
return code;
}
}
Usage:
Integer messageCode = null;
try {
// do stuff
} catch (MyException e) {
logger.log(e.getMessage(), e); // log actual message
messageCode = e.getCode();
}
if(messageCode != null /* && you really want to show it to end user */) {
String localizedMessage = db.selectMessage(code);
// show localized message to end user
}
Adavantages:
You don't need a Util class to throw exceptions.
You don't need to access db every time you throw an exception but
only when you catch it and "decide" to fetch the message if you want
to show it to user.
You don't need to catch an exception inside another exception.
You don't lose the actual non-localized message.
You don't lose actual stack trace in case db.getMessage() fails and throws exception.
Edit:
There is a dispute about whether the if part is a good idea or not so I have to elaborate.
message and localized version of message, these are very different.
Message:
is a description of what has gone wrong.
is what you see in console and in log records when exception occurs.
is in English.
must be shown regardless of any conditions and if not shown it's considered a very bad practice.
Localized Message:
is a translation of Message for the benefit of End User and not programmer.
is not in English.
is not expected to be shown either in console or log records.
is only needed when interacting with End User in UI.
is not expected to be used in non-UI related parts of code.
In the actual code provided by asker, message is replaced by localized message which violates expected behavior of a well-designed exception so I separated these two. In my code the message is Always shown and can be logged whenever exception occurs regardless of any conditions; Fetching localized message occurs only IF you actually need to interact with End Users. So access to DB can be skipped when you are not interacting with them.

the catch block is designed to do some actions after an exception occurs in your program, hence i would recommend you to provide some of the exception handling code in the catch block as it will allow others to understand your program efficiently

It is not bad as long it is code that helps you best handle the exception

The problem is one of too many moving parts. If your database access within the catch block fails by throwing an exception - and it can fail for any one of a number of reasons - then you won't ever see even your original exception. The same goes for anything you do in the catch block that could itself throw an exception.
This has recently happened to me, in fact, in legacy code (different language though same idea). Man is that a pain when you know your production system is failing for some specific reason but you have no idea what that specific reason is ...
It may be the case that your routine db.selectMessage() is itself protected against and won't throw an exception. Ok then. But it's going to be your responsibility to check that in every catch block you write. It's better to go with a design approach that doesn't involve catch blocks that do much of anything except things known to be 'safe'.
In some languages, by the way, catching all exceptions catches some really nasty ones (in Java, those aren't usually subclasses of java.lang.Exception though). And sometimes you really don't want to do anything unnecessary, 'cause you don't know what state you're in and what'll happen.
In this case, you're probably going to be logging that exception somewhere (or otherwise notifying the user). That logging code is (or should be) centralized in your application. That's the place to carefully translate/localize/interpret the exception code ... someplace where in one place you can make sure it works and is protected ... same as the logging code itself.

why not debug rather why exception handling

we specify the exception in try and catch.If we know what exception is gonna be generated why go for exception handling rather than just debug that part of the code?

According to Oracle definition of Exception
An exception is an event that occurs during the execution of a program that disrupts the normal flow of instructions.
CONCLUSION:
If you put a try {} catch block you know will always trow an Exception, your code is wrong.
For example, this code compiles? YES, but is wrong
String s = "throwMe!";
try {
int number = Integer.parseInt(s);
} catch (NumberFormatException) {
}
CORRECT EXCEPTION USE
System.out.println("Enter a number");
String s = Scanner..... // user enters something
try {
int number = Integer.parseInt(s);
} catch (NumberFormatException) {
// TELL USER THERE IS A PROBLEM
}
// TELL USER IS A GENIUS
This will have 2 execution flows, the correct one (user is a genius) but in the moment the user enters a value disrupting the flow (Integer.parseInt(s);) the Exception is thrown...

No, exceptions refer to run-time conditions that we cannot foresee
For example, the divide-by-zero error happens due to user inputting wrong data.
So you catch with try-catch
try {
}
catch(ArithmeticException){
}

You don't have to do exception handling or debugging, you can do both and good exception handling helps you debug your code later on.
If nothing else a catch block should print the Stack Trace which gives you information regarding where things went wrong with your code and it's much better than failing silently and then manually debug your whole code to search for the problem.
There are many other advantages to using exceptions for error handling as well.

Try / catch blocks are for errors that you cannot foresee. Things like null pointers and divide by 0 errors don't need a try catch blocks. Those things are typically errors on the part of programmers and should be debugged by the programmers. But things like IOException or SQLException, where you are interfacing with some other system that could fail or give invalid input that the programmer cannot control, those things need a try / catch block.

Why Catching Throwable or Error is bad? [duplicate]

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)

Java coding practice, runtime exceptions and this scenario

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.