Related
To avoid all standard-answers I could have Googled on, I will provide an example you all can attack at will.
C# and Java (and too many others) have with plenty of types some of ‘overflow’ behaviour I don’t like at all (e.g type.MaxValue + type.SmallestValue == type.MinValue for example : int.MaxValue + 1 == int.MinValue).
But, seen my vicious nature, I’ll add some insult to this injury by expanding this behaviour to, let’s say an Overridden DateTime type. (I know DateTime is sealed in .NET, but for the sake of this example, I’m using a pseudo language that is exactly like C#, except for the fact that DateTime isn’t sealed).
The overridden Add method:
/// <summary>
/// Increments this date with a timespan, but loops when
/// the maximum value for datetime is exceeded.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="ts">The timespan to (try to) add</param>
/// <returns>The Date, incremented with the given timespan.
/// If DateTime.MaxValue is exceeded, the sum wil 'overflow' and
/// continue from DateTime.MinValue.
/// </returns>
public DateTime override Add(TimeSpan ts)
{
try
{
return base.Add(ts);
}
catch (ArgumentOutOfRangeException nb)
{
// calculate how much the MaxValue is exceeded
// regular program flow
TimeSpan saldo = ts - (base.MaxValue - this);
return DateTime.MinValue.Add(saldo)
}
catch(Exception anyOther)
{
// 'real' exception handling.
}
}
Of course an if could solve this just as easy, but the fact remains that I just fail to see why you couldn’t use exceptions (logically that is, I can see that when performance is an issue that in certain cases exceptions should be avoided).
I think in many cases they are more clear than if-structures and don’t break any contract the method is making.
IMHO the “Never use them for regular program flow” reaction everybody seems to have is not that well underbuild as the strength of that reaction can justify.
Or am I mistaken?
I've read other posts, dealing with all kind of special cases, but my point is there's nothing wrong with it if you are both:
Clear
Honour the contract of your method
Shoot me.
Have you ever tried to debug a program raising five exceptions per second in the normal course of operation ?
I have.
The program was quite complex (it was a distributed calculation server), and a slight modification at one side of the program could easily break something in a totally different place.
I wish I could just have launched the program and wait for exceptions to occur, but there were around 200 exceptions during the start-up in the normal course of operations
My point : if you use exceptions for normal situations, how do you locate unusual (ie exceptional) situations ?
Of course, there are other strong reasons not to use exceptions too much, especially performance-wise
Exceptions are basically non-local goto statements with all the consequences of the latter. Using exceptions for flow control violates a principle of least astonishment, make programs hard to read (remember that programs are written for programmers first).
Moreover, this is not what compiler vendors expect. They expect exceptions to be thrown rarely, and they usually let the throw code be quite inefficient. Throwing exceptions is one of the most expensive operations in .NET.
However, some languages (notably Python) use exceptions as flow-control constructs. For example, iterators raise a StopIteration exception if there are no further items. Even standard language constructs (such as for) rely on this.
My rule of thumb is:
If you can do anything to recover from an error, catch exceptions
If the error is a very common one (eg. user tried to log in with the wrong password), use returnvalues
If you can't do anything to recover from an error, leave it uncaught (Or catch it in your main-catcher to do some semi-graceful shutdown of the application)
The problem I see with exceptions is from a purely syntax point of view (I'm pretty sure the perfomance overhead is minimal). I don't like try-blocks all over the place.
Take this example:
try
{
DoSomeMethod(); //Can throw Exception1
DoSomeOtherMethod(); //Can throw Exception1 and Exception2
}
catch(Exception1)
{
//Okay something messed up, but is it SomeMethod or SomeOtherMethod?
}
.. Another example could be when you need to assign something to a handle using a factory, and that factory could throw an exception:
Class1 myInstance;
try
{
myInstance = Class1Factory.Build();
}
catch(SomeException)
{
// Couldn't instantiate class, do something else..
}
myInstance.BestMethodEver(); // Will throw a compile-time error, saying that myInstance is uninitalized, which it potentially is.. :(
Soo, personally, I think you should keep exceptions for rare error-conditions (out of memory etc.) and use returnvalues (valueclasses, structs or enums) to do your error checking instead.
Hope I understood your question correct :)
A first reaction to a lot of answers :
you're writing for the programmers and the principle of least astonishment
Of course! But an if just isnot more clear all the time.
It shouldn't be astonishing eg : divide (1/x) catch (divisionByZero) is more clear than any if to me (at Conrad and others) . The fact this kind of programming isn't expected is purely conventional, and indeed, still relevant. Maybe in my example an if would be clearer.
But DivisionByZero and FileNotFound for that matter are clearer than ifs.
Of course if it's less performant and needed a zillion time per sec, you should of course avoid it, but still i haven't read any good reason to avoid the overal design.
As far as the principle of least astonishment goes : there's a danger of circular reasoning here : suppose a whole community uses a bad design, this design will become expected! Therefore the principle cannot be a grail and should be concidered carefully.
exceptions for normal situations, how do you locate unusual (ie exceptional) situations ?
In many reactions sth. like this shines trough. Just catch them, no? Your method should be clear, well documented, and hounouring it's contract. I don't get that question I must admit.
Debugging on all exceptions : the same, that's just done sometimes because the design not to use exceptions is common. My question was : why is it common in the first place?
Before exceptions, in C, there were setjmp and longjmp that could be used to accomplish a similar unrolling of the stack frame.
Then the same construct was given a name: "Exception". And most of the answers rely on the meaning of this name to argue about its usage, claiming that exceptions are intended to be used in exceptional conditions. That was never the intent in the original longjmp. There were just situations where you needed to break control flow across many stack frames.
Exceptions are slightly more general in that you can use them within the same stack frame too. This raises analogies with goto that I believe are wrong. Gotos are a tightly coupled pair (and so are setjmp and longjmp). Exceptions follow a loosely coupled publish/subscribe that is much cleaner! Therefore using them within the same stack frame is hardly the same thing as using gotos.
The third source of confusion relates to whether they are checked or unchecked exceptions. Of course, unchecked exceptions seem particularly awful to use for control flow and perhaps a lot of other things.
Checked exceptions however are great for control flow, once you get over all the Victorian hangups and live a little.
My favorite usage is a sequence of throw new Success() in a long fragment of code that tries one thing after the other until it finds what it is looking for. Each thing -- each piece of logic -- may have arbritrary nesting so break's are out as also any kind of condition tests. The if-else pattern is brittle. If I edit out an else or mess up the syntax in some other way, then there is a hairy bug.
Using throw new Success() linearizes the code flow. I use locally defined Success classes -- checked of course -- so that if I forget to catch it the code won't compile. And I don't catch another method's Successes.
Sometimes my code checks for one thing after the other and only succeeds if everything is OK. In this case I have a similar linearization using throw new Failure().
Using a separate function messes with the natural level of compartmentalization. So the return solution is not optimal. I prefer to have a page or two of code in one place for cognitive reasons. I don't believe in ultra-finely divided code.
What JVMs or compilers do is less relevant to me unless there is a hotspot. I cannot believe there is any fundamental reason for compilers to not detect locally thrown and caught Exceptions and simply treat them as very efficient gotos at the machine code level.
As far as using them across functions for control flow -- i. e. for common cases rather than exceptional ones -- I cannot see how they would be less efficient than multiple break, condition tests, returns to wade through three stack frames as opposed to just restore the stack pointer.
I personally do not use the pattern across stack frames and I can see how it would require design sophistication to do so elegantly. But used sparingly it should be fine.
Lastly, regarding surprising virgin programmers, it is not a compelling reason. If you gently introduce them to the practice, they will learn to love it. I remember C++ used to surprise and scare the heck out of C programmers.
The standard anwser is that exceptions are not regular and should be used in exceptional cases.
One reason, which is important to me, is that when I read a try-catch control structure in a software I maintain or debug, I try to find out why the original coder used an exception handling instead of an if-else structure. And I expect to find a good answer.
Remember that you write code not only for the computer but also for other coders. There is a semantic associated to an exception handler that you cannot throw away just because the machine doesn't mind.
Josh Bloch deals with this topic extensively in Effective Java. His suggestions are illuminating and should apply to .NET as well (except for the details).
In particular, exceptions should be used for exceptional circumstances. The reasons for this are usability-related, mainly. For a given method to be maximally usable, its input and output conditions should be maximally constrained.
For example, the second method is easier to use than the first:
/**
* Adds two positive numbers.
*
* #param addend1 greater than zero
* #param addend2 greater than zero
* #throws AdditionException if addend1 or addend2 is less than or equal to zero
*/
int addPositiveNumbers(int addend1, int addend2) throws AdditionException{
if( addend1 <= 0 ){
throw new AdditionException("addend1 is <= 0");
}
else if( addend2 <= 0 ){
throw new AdditionException("addend2 is <= 0");
}
return addend1 + addend2;
}
/**
* Adds two positive numbers.
*
* #param addend1 greater than zero
* #param addend2 greater than zero
*/
public int addPositiveNumbers(int addend1, int addend2) {
if( addend1 <= 0 ){
throw new IllegalArgumentException("addend1 is <= 0");
}
else if( addend2 <= 0 ){
throw new IllegalArgumentException("addend2 is <= 0");
}
return addend1 + addend2;
}
In either case, you need to check to make sure that the caller is using your API appropriately. But in the second case, you require it (implicitly). The soft Exceptions will still be thrown if the user didn't read the javadoc, but:
You don't need to document it.
You don't need to test for it (depending upon how aggresive your
unit testing strategy is).
You don't require the caller to handle three use cases.
The ground-level point is that Exceptions should not be used as return codes, largely because you've complicated not only YOUR API, but the caller's API as well.
Doing the right thing comes at a cost, of course. The cost is that everyone needs to understand that they need to read and follow the documentation. Hopefully that is the case anyway.
How about performance? While load testing a .NET web app we topped out at 100 simulated users per web server until we fixed a commonly-occuring exception and that number increased to 500 users.
I think that you can use Exceptions for flow control. There is, however, a flipside of this technique. Creating Exceptions is a costly thing, because they have to create a stack trace. So if you want to use Exceptions more often than for just signalling an exceptional situation you have to make sure that building the stack traces doesn't negatively influence your performance.
The best way to cut down the cost of creating exceptions is to override the fillInStackTrace() method like this:
public Throwable fillInStackTrace() { return this; }
Such an exception will have no stacktraces filled in.
Here are best practices I described in my blog post:
Throw an exception to state an unexpected situation in your software.
Use return values for input validation.
If you know how to deal with exceptions a library throws, catch them at the lowest level possible.
If you have an unexpected exception, discard current operation completely. Don’t pretend you know how to deal with them.
I don't really see how you're controlling program flow in the code you cited. You'll never see another exception besides the ArgumentOutOfRange exception. (So your second catch clause will never be hit). All you're doing is using an extremely costly throw to mimic an if statement.
Also you aren't performing the more sinister of operations where you just throw an exception purely for it to be caught somewhere else to perform flow control. You're actually handling an exceptional case.
Apart from the reasons stated, one reason not to use exceptions for flow control is that it can greatly complicate the debugging process.
For example, when I'm trying to track down a bug in VS I'll typically turn on "break on all exceptions". If you're using exceptions for flow control then I'm going to be breaking in the debugger on a regular basis and will have to keep ignoring these non-exceptional exceptions until I get to the real problem. This is likely to drive someone mad!!
Lets assume you have a method that does some calculations. There are many input parameters it has to validate, then to return a number greater then 0.
Using return values to signal validation error, it's simple: if method returned a number lesser then 0, an error occured. How to tell then which parameter didn't validate?
I remember from my C days a lot of functions returned error codes like this:
-1 - x lesser then MinX
-2 - x greater then MaxX
-3 - y lesser then MinY
etc.
Is it really less readable then throwing and catching an exception?
Because the code is hard to read, you may have troubles debugging it, you will introduce new bugs when fixing bugs after a long time, it is more expensive in terms of resources and time, and it annoys you if you are debugging your code and the debugger halts on the occurence of every exception ;)
If you are using exception handlers for control flow, you are being too general and lazy. As someone else mentioned, you know something happened if you are handling processing in the handler, but what exactly? Essentially you are using the exception for an else statement, if you are using it for control flow.
If you don't know what possible state could occur, then you can use an exception handler for unexpected states, for example when you have to use a third-party library, or you have to catch everything in the UI to show a nice error message and log the exception.
However, if you do know what might go wrong, and you don't put an if statement or something to check for it, then you are just being lazy. Allowing the exception handler to be the catch-all for stuff you know could happen is lazy, and it will come back to haunt you later, because you will be trying to fix a situation in your exception handler based on a possibly false assumption.
If you put logic in your exception handler to determine what exactly happened, then you would be quite stupid for not putting that logic inside the try block.
Exception handlers are the last resort, for when you run out of ideas/ways to stop something from going wrong, or things are beyond your ability to control. Like, the server is down and times out and you can't prevent that exception from being thrown.
Finally, having all the checks done up front shows what you know or expect will occur and makes it explicit. Code should be clear in intent. What would you rather read?
You can use a hammer's claw to turn a screw, just like you can use exceptions for control flow. That doesn't mean it is the intended usage of the feature. The if statement expresses conditions, whose intended usage is controlling flow.
If you are using a feature in an unintended way while choosing to not use the feature designed for that purpose, there will be an associated cost. In this case, clarity and performance suffer for no real added value. What does using exceptions buy you over the widely-accepted if statement?
Said another way: just because you can doesn't mean you should.
As others have mentioned numerously, the principle of least astonishment will forbid that you use exceptions excessively for control flow only purposes. On the other hand, no rule is 100% correct, and there are always those cases where an exception is "just the right tool" - much like goto itself, by the way, which ships in the form of break and continue in languages like Java, which are often the perfect way to jump out of heavily nested loops, which aren't always avoidable.
The following blog post explains a rather complex but also rather interesting use-case for a non-local ControlFlowException:
http://blog.jooq.org/2013/04/28/rare-uses-of-a-controlflowexception
It explains how inside of jOOQ (a SQL abstraction library for Java), such exceptions are occasionally used to abort the SQL rendering process early when some "rare" condition is met.
Examples of such conditions are:
Too many bind values are encountered. Some databases do not support arbitrary numbers of bind values in their SQL statements (SQLite: 999, Ingres 10.1.0: 1024, Sybase ASE 15.5: 2000, SQL Server 2008: 2100). In those cases, jOOQ aborts the SQL rendering phase and re-renders the SQL statement with inlined bind values. Example:
// Pseudo-code attaching a "handler" that will
// abort query rendering once the maximum number
// of bind values was exceeded:
context.attachBindValueCounter();
String sql;
try {
// In most cases, this will succeed:
sql = query.render();
}
catch (ReRenderWithInlinedVariables e) {
sql = query.renderWithInlinedBindValues();
}
If we explicitly extracted the bind values from the query AST to count them every time, we'd waste valuable CPU cycles for those 99.9% of the queries that don't suffer from this problem.
Some logic is available only indirectly via an API that we want to execute only "partially". The UpdatableRecord.store() method generates an INSERT or UPDATE statement, depending on the Record's internal flags. From the "outside", we don't know what kind of logic is contained in store() (e.g. optimistic locking, event listener handling, etc.) so we don't want to repeat that logic when we store several records in a batch statement, where we'd like to have store() only generate the SQL statement, not actually execute it. Example:
// Pseudo-code attaching a "handler" that will
// prevent query execution and throw exceptions
// instead:
context.attachQueryCollector();
// Collect the SQL for every store operation
for (int i = 0; i < records.length; i++) {
try {
records[i].store();
}
// The attached handler will result in this
// exception being thrown rather than actually
// storing records to the database
catch (QueryCollectorException e) {
// The exception is thrown after the rendered
// SQL statement is available
queries.add(e.query());
}
}
If we had externalised the store() logic into "re-usable" API that can be customised to optionally not execute the SQL, we'd be looking into creating a rather hard to maintain, hardly re-usable API.
Conclusion
In essence, our usage of these non-local gotos is just along the lines of what [Mason Wheeler][5] said in his answer:
"I just encountered a situation that I cannot deal with properly at this point, because I don't have enough context to handle it, but the routine that called me (or something further up the call stack) ought to know how to handle it."
Both usages of ControlFlowExceptions were rather easy to implement compared to their alternatives, allowing us to reuse a wide range of logic without refactoring it out of the relevant internals.
But the feeling of this being a bit of a surprise to future maintainers remains. The code feels rather delicate and while it was the right choice in this case, we'd always prefer not to use exceptions for local control flow, where it is easy to avoid using ordinary branching through if - else.
Typically there is nothing wrong, per se, with handling an exception at a low level. An exception IS a valid message that provides a lot of detail for why an operation cannot be performed. And if you can handle it, you ought to.
In general if you know there is a high probability of failure that you can check for... you should do the check... i.e. if(obj != null) obj.method()
In your case, i'm not familiar enough with the C# library to know if date time has an easy way to check whether a timestamp is out of bounds. If it does, just call if(.isvalid(ts))
otherwise your code is basically fine.
So, basically it comes down to whichever way creates cleaner code... if the operation to guard against an expected exception is more complex than just handling the exception; than you have my permission to handle the exception instead of creating complex guards everywhere.
You might be interested in having a look at Common Lisp's condition system which is a sort of generalization of exceptions done right. Because you can unwind the stack or not in a controlled way, you get "restarts" as well, which are extremely handy.
This doesn't have anything much to do with best practices in other languages, but it shows you what can be done with some design thought in (roughly) the direction you are thinking of.
Of course there are still performance considerations if you're bouncing up and down the stack like a yo-yo, but it's a much more general idea than "oh crap, lets bail" kind of approach that most catch/throw exception systems embody.
I don't think there is anything wrong with using Exceptions for flow-control. Exceptions are somewhat similar to continuations and in statically typed languages, Exceptions are more powerful than continuations, so, if you need continuations but your language doesn't have them, you can use Exceptions to implement them.
Well, actually, if you need continuations and your language doesn't have them, you chose the wrong language and you should rather be using a different one. But sometimes you don't have a choice: client-side web programming is the prime example – there's just no way to get around JavaScript.
An example: Microsoft Volta is a project to allow writing web applications in straight-forward .NET, and let the framework take care of figuring out which bits need to run where. One consequence of this is that Volta needs to be able to compile CIL to JavaScript, so that you can run code on the client. However, there is a problem: .NET has multithreading, JavaScript doesn't. So, Volta implements continuations in JavaScript using JavaScript Exceptions, then implements .NET Threads using those continuations. That way, Volta applications that use threads can be compiled to run in an unmodified browser – no Silverlight needed.
But you won't always know what happens in the Method/s that you call. You won't know exactly where the exception was thrown. Without examining the exception object in greater detail....
I feel that there is nothing wrong with your example. On the contrary, it would be a sin to ignore the exception thrown by the called function.
In the JVM, throwing an exception is not that expensive, only creating the exception with new xyzException(...), because the latter involves a stack walk. So if you have some exceptions created in advance, you may throw them many times without costs. Of course, this way you can't pass data along with the exception, but I think that is a bad thing to do anyway.
There are a few general mechanisms via which a language could allow for a method to exit without returning a value and unwind to the next "catch" block:
Have the method examine the stack frame to determine the call site, and use the metadata for the call site to find either information about a try block within the calling method, or the location where the calling method stored the address of its caller; in the latter situation, examine metadata for the caller's caller to determine in the same fashion as the immediate caller, repeating until one finds a try block or the stack is empty. This approach adds very little overhead to the no-exception case (it does preclude some optimizations) but is expensive when an exception occurs.
Have the method return a "hidden" flag which distinguishes a normal return from an exception, and have the caller check that flag and branch to an "exception" routine if it's set. This routine adds 1-2 instructions to the no-exception case, but relatively little overhead when an exception occurs.
Have the caller place exception-handling information or code at a fixed address relative to the stacked return address. For example, with the ARM, instead of using the instruction "BL subroutine", one could use the sequence:
adr lr,next_instr
b subroutine
b handle_exception
next_instr:
To exit normally, the subroutine would simply do bx lr or pop {pc}; in case of an abnormal exit, the subroutine would either subtract 4 from LR before performing the return or use sub lr,#4,pc (depending upon the ARM variation, execution mode, etc.) This approach will malfunction very badly if the caller is not designed to accommodate it.
A language or framework which uses checked exceptions might benefit from having those handled with a mechanism like #2 or #3 above, while unchecked exceptions are handled using #1. Although the implementation of checked exceptions in Java is rather nuisancesome, they would not be a bad concept if there were a means by which a call site could say, essentially, "This method is declared as throwing XX, but I don't expect it ever to do so; if it does, rethrow as an "unchecked" exception. In a framework where checked exceptions were handled in such fashion, they could be an effective means of flow control for things like parsing methods which in some contexts may have a high likelihood of failure, but where failure should return fundamentally different information than success. I'm unaware of any frameworks that use such a pattern, however. Instead, the more common pattern is to use the first approach above (minimal cost for the no-exception case, but high cost when exceptions are thrown) for all exceptions.
One aesthetic reason:
A try always comes with a catch, whereas an if doesn't have to come with an else.
if (PerformCheckSucceeded())
DoSomething();
With try/catch, it becomes much more verbose.
try
{
PerformCheckSucceeded();
DoSomething();
}
catch
{
}
That's 6 lines of code too many.
The "using" construct looks incredibly handy for situations that require both beginning and separated end parts.
Quick example to illustrate:
using (new Tag("body")) {
Trace.WriteLine("hello!");
}
// ...
class Tag : IDisposable {
String name;
public Tag(String name) {
this.name = name;
Trace.WriteLine("<" + this.name + ">");
Trace.Indent();
}
public void Dispose() {
Trace.Unindent();
Trace.WriteLine("</" + this.name + ">")
}
}
The beginning part is defined as the constructor, the end part is the Dispose method.
However despite of being attractive this construct has a serious caveat that comes from the fact that the Dispose method is called from within a finally block. So there are 2 problems:
You should avoid throwing exceptions from the finally block because they will override the original exception that was supposed to be caught.
There is no way of knowing inside of the Dispose method if an exception was thrown earlier between "beginning" and "end" and thus there is no way of handling the "end" part accordingly.
These 2 things make using of this construct impractical which is a very sad fact.
Now, my questions are:
Is my understanding of the problems right? Is this how "using" actually works?
If so, is there any way to overcome these problems and make practical use of the "using" construct other than what it was originally designed for (releasing resources and cleaning up)
In case there is no practical way for "using" to be used this way. What are the alternative approaches (to enforce the context over some code with the beginning and end parts)?
Your rule #1 applies with or without using, so the rule #2 is the real decider: opt for a try/catch if you must distinguish between situations when an exception has been thrown and the normal program completion.
For example, if your persistence layer may discover issues in the process of using a database connection, your connection needs to close regardless of the fact that there was an exception. In this case, the using construct is a perfect choice.
In some cases you can set up using specifically to detect normal completion vs. an exceptional completion. Ambient transactions provide a perfect example:
using(TransactionScope scope = new TransactionScope()) {
// Do something that may throw an exception
scope.Complete();
}
If scope's Dispose is called before Complete has been called, TransactionScope knows that an exception has been thrown, and aborts the transaction.
The intent of the using statement and of the IDisposable interface is for the user to dispose of unmanaged resources. These resources are usually expensive and precious, so they must be disposed of no matter what (that's why it's on the finally). Code in finally blocks can't even be aborted, and it can hang a whole app domain shutdown.
Now, it's very tempting to abuse using for the purposes you're describing, and I've done that in the past. Most of the time there's no danger there. But if an unexpected exception happens, the whole state of the processing is compromised, you wouldn't necessarily want to run the end operation; so in general, don't do this.
An alternative is to use a lambda, something like this:
public interface IScopable {
void EndScope();
}
public class Tag : IScopable {
private string name;
public Tag(string name) {
this.name = name;
Trace.WriteLine("<" + this.name + ">");
Trace.Indent();
}
public void EndScope() {
Trace.Unindent();
Trace.WriteLine("</" + this.name + ">");
}
}
public static class Scoping {
public static void Scope<T>(this T scopable, Action<T> action)
where T : IScopable {
action(scopable);
scopable.EndScope();
}
}
Use it like this:
new Tag("body").Scope(_ =>
Trace.WriteLine("hello!")
);
You can also create other implementations that run certain actions based on whether exceptions were raised of not.
In Nemerle, the language can be extended with new syntax to support this.
I dont know if this was the original intention of IDisposable, but Microsoft certanly ARE using it the way you describe (separating begin and end parts). A good example for it is the MVCForm class, provided by the mvc infrastracture. It implements IDisposable and writes the end tag for the form, while i cant see its implementation releasing ant resources (the writer used there to ouput the html seems to stay alive even after the form is disposed).
Alot has been written about the using block and how it "swallows" exceptions (a wcf client is a good sample, you can also find such discussions here, on SO). Personally i also feel alot of times that as much as it is convinient to use the using block, its not really 100% clear when it should and when it should not be used.
Of course, you actually CAN tell within the dispose method if you reached it with our without an error, by adding an extra flag to your class, and raising it within the using block, but this will work only if the person who will use your class will be aware of that flag
You are correct in observing a problem with the design of try/finally blocks, which is in turn a problem with using: there is no clean way for code in a finally block to know whether code execution will continue with the statement following the finally block, or whether there is a pending exception which will be effectively take over as soon as the finally block executes.
I would really like to see a language feature in vb.net and C# which would allow a finally block to include an Exception parameter (e.g.
try
{
}
finally (Exception ex)
{
...
}
where the passed-in exception would be null if the try block exited normally, or would hold an exception if it did not. Along with this, I would like to see an IDisposableEx interface, which would inherit Dispose, and include a Dispose(Exception ex) method with the expectation that user code would pass in the ex from the finally block. Any exceptions which occurred during the Dispose could then wrap the passed-in exception (since both the passed-in exception, and the fact that an exception occurred in Dispose, would be relevant).
Failing that, it might be helpful to have .net provide a method which would indicate whether there was an exception pending in the current context. Unfortunately, it's not clear what the exact semantics of such a method should be in various corner cases. By contrast, the semantics of finally (Exception ex) would be perfectly clear. Note, incidentally, that a proper implementation of finally (Exception ex) would require that the language make use of exception filters, but would not require exposing the ability to create arbitrary filters.
In my opinion you are misusing the IDisposable interface.
A common practice is to use the interface to release unmanaged resources. Normally, the garbage collector will clean up objects, but in some cases - When yo do NOT longer need the object - you might need to manually clean up.
However in your case, you are not cleaning up an object that is not needed anymore; you are using it to force some logic. You should use another design for that.
I'm hoping this is straightforward. I work on a large code-base, the overall quality is good, but occasionally you get some of these:
try
{
// Calls a .NET remoting method.
}
catch
{
throw;
}
Note there is no finally logic and the catch does not specify any exceptions or do anything other than what I've provided above. However, I know that catching and re-throwing can alter the call-stack in the exception details. What I'm not sure about is if this behaviour is here specifically because of a .NET remoting call.
Is it safe to remove this try-catch? So far as I can see, it is, but I thought I'd double check for any odd behaviour first.
Rethrowing as you've shown it shouldn't change the call stack, unless there's something very special about remoting exceptions. (I know there are some special aspects, but I don't think they come into play here.) This is the kind of thing which does lose information:
catch(Exception e)
{
throw e; // Not throw;
}
My guess is that some developer has included this just so they can put a breakpoint on the throw line. I would get rid of it.
As far as I know, catch (Exception ex) { throw ex } resets the stack-trace. And just catch { throw; } does not.
So if you don't perform any additional logic on error, e.g. logging, I don't know any reason to not remove that catch.
In certain situations related to code access security the catch-rethrow clause can be a necessary security feature. But I doubt it applies here. Especially since no sane person would use this pattern without adding a comment.
The point of it is to prevent exception filters from running while having increased privileges.
A few related articles:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/shawnfa/archive/2005/03/31/404320.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8cd7yaws(v=VS.100).aspx
http://www.pluralsight-training.net/community/blogs/keith/archive/2005/03/31/7149.aspx
Seems to be obsolete since .net 2:
Impersonation and Exception Filters in v2.0
While, in most cases, it probably is redundant/unnecessary code,
try { .. } catch { throw; } can suppress compiler optimizations and JIT method inlining. This is mostly seen in call-stack traces.
Thus, there "could" be a side-effect that is relied on elsewhere.
Arguably, the 'error' would be in reliance on this implementation detail, especially without explicit documentation about such expected behavior.. and especially since such is not a guarantee.
See Release IS NOT Debug: 64bit Optimizations and C# Method Inlining in Release Build Call Stacks which predated even this old question.
While the code seems redundant, the try-catch code won't be eliminated during compilation either.
In Java, the throws keyword allows for a method to declare that it will not handle an exception on its own, but rather throw it to the calling method.
Is there a similar keyword/attribute in C#?
If there is no equivalent, how can you accomplish the same (or a similar) effect?
The op is asking about the C# equivalent of Java's throws clause - not the throw keyword. This is used in method signatures in Java to indicate a checked exception can be thrown.
In C#, there is no direct equivalent of a Java checked exception. C# has no equivalent method signature clause.
// Java - need to have throws clause if IOException not handled
public void readFile() throws java.io.IOException {
...not explicitly handling java.io.IOException...
}
translates to
// C# - no equivalent of throws clause exceptions are unchecked
public void ReadFile()
{
...not explicitly handling System.IO.IOException...
}
In Java, you must either handle an exception or mark the method as one that may throw it using the throws keyword.
C# does not have this keyword or an equivalent one, as in C#, if you don't handle an exception, it will bubble up, until caught or if not caught it will terminate the program.
If you want to handle it then re-throw you can do the following:
try
{
// code that throws an exception
}
catch(ArgumentNullException ex)
{
// code that handles the exception
throw;
}
Yes this is an old thread, however I frequently find old threads when I am googling answers so I figured I would add something useful that I have found.
If you are using Visual Studio 2012 there is a built in tool that can be used to allow for an IDE level "throws" equivalent.
If you use XML Documentation Comments, as mentioned above, then you can use the <exception> tag to specify the type of exception thrown by the method or class as well as information on when or why it is thrown.
example:
/// <summary>This method throws an exception.</summary>
/// <param name="myPath">A path to a directory that will be zipped.</param>
/// <exception cref="IOException">This exception is thrown if the archive already exists</exception>
public void FooThrowsAnException (string myPath)
{
// This will throw an IO exception
ZipFile.CreateFromDirectory(myPath);
}
Here is an answer to a similar question I just found on bytes.com:
The short answer is no. There are no checked exceptions in C#. The
designer of the language discusses this decision in this interview:
http://www.artima.com/intv/handcuffs.html
The nearest you can get is to use the tags in your XML
documentation, and distribute NDoc generated docs with your
code/assemblies so that other people can see which exceptions you throw
(which is exactly what MS do in the MSDN documentation). You can't rely
on the compiler to tell you about unhandled exceptions, however, like
you may be used to in java.
After going through most of the answers here, I'd like to add a couple of thoughts.
Relying on XML Documentation Comments and expecting others to rely on is a poor choice. Most C# code I've come across does not document methods completely and consistently with XML Documentation Comments. And then there's the bigger issue that without checked exceptions in C#, how could you document all exceptions your method throws for the purpose of your API user to know how to handle them all individually? Remember, you only know about the ones you throw yourself with the throw keyword in your implementation. APIs you're using inside your method implementation might also throw exceptions that you don't know about because they might not be documented and you're not handling them in your implementation, so they'll blow up in face of the caller of your method. In other words, these XML documentation comments are no replacement for checked exceptions.
Andreas linked an interview with Anders Hejlsberg in the answers here on why the C# design team decided against checked exceptions. The ultimate response to the original question is hidden in that interview:
The programmers protect their code by writing try finally's everywhere, so they'll back out correctly if an exception occurs, but they're not actually interested in handling the exceptions.
In other words, nobody should be interested in what kind of exception can be expected for a particular API as you're always going to catch all of them everywhere. And if you want to really care about particular exceptions, how to handle them is up to you and not someone defining a method signature with something like the Java throws keyword, forcing particular exception handling on an API user.
--
Personally, I'm torn here. I agree with Anders that having checked exceptions doesn't solve the problem without adding new, different problems. Just like with the XML documentation comments, I rarely see C# code with everything wrapped in try finally blocks. It feels to me though this is indeed your only option and something that seems like a good practice.
Actually not having checked exceptions in C# can be considered a good or bad thing.
I myself consider it to be a good solution since checked exceptions provide you with the following problems:
Technical Exceptions leaking to the business/domain layer because you cannot handle them properly on the low level.
They belong to the method signature which doesn't always play nice with API design.
Because of that in most bigger applications you will see the following pattern often when checked Exceptions occur:
try {
// Some Code
} catch(SomeException ex){
throw new RuntimeException(ex);
}
Which essentially means emulating the way C#/.NET handles all Exceptions.
You are asking about this :
Re-throwing an Exception
public void Method()
{
try
{
int x = 0;
int sum = 100/x;
}
catch(DivideByZeroException e)
{
throw;
}
}
or
static void Main()
{
string s = null;
if (s == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException();
}
Console.Write("The string s is null"); // not executed
}
There are some fleeting similarities between the .Net CodeContract EnsuresOnThrow<> and the java throws descriptor, in that both can signal to the caller as the type of exception which could be raised from a function or method, although there are also major differences between the 2:
EnsuresOnThrow<> goes beyond just stating which exceptions can be thrown, but also stipulates the conditions under which they are guaranteed to be thrown - this can be quite onerous code in the called method if the exception condition isn't trivial to identify. Java throws provides an indication of which exceptions could be thrown (i.e. IMO the focus in .Net is inside the method which contracts to prove the throw, whereas in Java the focus shifts to the caller to acknowledge the possibility of the exception).
.Net CC doesn't make the distinction between Checked vs Unchecked exceptions that Java has, although the CC manual section 2.2.2 does mention to
"use exceptional postconditions only for those exceptions that a caller
should expect as part of the API"
In .Net the caller can determine whether or not to do anything with the exception (e.g. by disabling contracts). In Java, the caller must do something, even if it adds a throws for the same exception on its interface.
Code Contracts manual here
If the c# method's purpose is to only throw an exception (like js return type says) I would recommend just return that exception. See the example bellow:
public EntityNotFoundException GetEntityNotFoundException(Type entityType, object id)
{
return new EntityNotFoundException($"The object '{entityType.Name}' with given id '{id}' not found.");
}
public TEntity GetEntity<TEntity>(string id)
{
var entity = session.Get<TEntity>(id);
if (entity == null)
throw GetEntityNotFoundException(typeof(TEntity), id);
return entity;
}
For those wondering, you do not even need to define what you catch to pass it on to the next method. In case you want all your error handling in one main thread you can just catch everything and pass it on like so:
try {
//your code here
}
catch {
//this will throw any exceptions caught by this try/catch
throw;
}
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm stuck deciding how to handle exceptions in my application.
Much if my issues with exceptions comes from 1) accessing data via a remote service or 2) deserializing a JSON object. Unfortunately I can't guarantee success for either of these tasks (cut network connection, malformed JSON object that is out of my control).
As a result, if I do encounter an exception I simply catch it within the function and return FALSE to the caller. My logic is that all the caller really cares about is if the task was successful, not why it is wasn't successful.
Here's some sample code (in JAVA) of a typical method)
public boolean doSomething(Object p_somthingToDoOn)
{
boolean result = false;
try{
// if dirty object then clean
doactualStuffOnObject(p_jsonObject);
//assume success (no exception thrown)
result = true;
}
catch(Exception Ex)
{
//don't care about exceptions
Ex.printStackTrace();
}
return result;
}
I think this approach is fine, but I'm really curious to know what the best practices are for managing exceptions (should I really bubble an exception all the way up a call stack?).
In summary of key questions:
Is it okay to just catch exceptions but not bubble them up or formally notifying the system (either via a log or a notification to the user)?
What best practices are there for exceptions that don't result in everything requiring a try/catch block?
Follow Up/Edit
Thanks for all the feedback, found some excellent sources on exception management online:
Best Practices for Exception Handling | O'Reilly Media
Exception Handling Best Practices in .NET
Best Practices: Exception Management (Article now points to archive.org copy)
Exception-Handling Antipatterns
It seems that exception management is one of those things that vary based on context. But most importantly, one should be consistent in how they manage exceptions within a system.
Additionally watch out for code-rot via excessive try/catches or not giving a exception its respect (an exception is warning the system, what else needs to be warned?).
Also, this is a pretty choice comment from m3rLinEz.
I tend to agree with Anders Hejlsberg and you that the most callers only
care if operation is successful or not.
From this comment it brings up some questions to think about when dealing with exceptions:
What is the point this exception being thrown?
How does it make sense to handle it?
Does the caller really care about the exception or do they just care if the call was successful?
Is forcing a caller to manage a potential exception graceful?
Are you being respectful to the idoms of the language?
Do you really need to return a success flag like boolean? Returning boolean (or an int) is more of a C mindset than a Java (in Java you would just handle the exception) one.
Follow the error management constructs associated with the language :) !
It seems odd to me that you want to catch exceptions and turn them into error codes. Why do you think the caller would prefer error codes over exceptions when the latter is the default in both Java and C#?
As for your questions:
You should only catch exceptions that you can actually handle. Just
catching exceptions is not the right thing to do in most cases.
There are a few exceptions (e.g. logging and marshalling exceptions
between threads) but even for those cases you should generally
rethrow the exceptions.
You should definitely not have a lot of try/catch statements in your
code. Again, the idea is to only catch exceptions you can handle.
You may include a topmost exception handler to turn any unhandled
exceptions into something somewhat useful for the end user but
otherwise you should not try to catch each and every exception in
every possible place.
This depends on the application and the situation. If your building a library component, you should bubble up exceptions, although they should be wrapped to be contextual with your component. For example if your building an Xml Database and let's say you are using the file system to store your data, and you are using file system permissions to secure the data. You wouldn't want to bubble up a FileIOAccessDenied exception as that leaks your implementation. Instead you would wrap the exception and throw an AccessDenied error. This is especially true if you distribute the component to third parties.
As for if it's okay to swallow exceptions. That depends on your system. If your application can handle the failure cases and there is no benefit from notifying the user why it failed then go ahead, although I highly recommend that your log the failure. I've always found it frustating being called to help troubleshoot an issue and find they were swallowing the exception (or replacing it and throwing a new one instead without setting the inner exception).
In general I use the following rules:
In my components & libraries I only catch an exception if I intend to handle it or do something based on it. Or if I want to provide additional contextual information in an exception.
I use a general try catch at the application entry point, or the highest level possible. If an exception gets here I just log it and let it fail. Ideally exceptions should never get here.
I find the following code to be a smell:
try
{
//do something
}
catch(Exception)
{
throw;
}
Code like this serves no point and should not be included.
I would like to recommend another good source on the topic. It's an interview with inventors of C# and Java, Anders Hejlsberg and James Gosling respectively, on the topic of Java's Checked Exception.
Failure and Exceptions
There are also great resources at the bottom of the page.
I tend to agree with Anders Hejlsberg and you that the most callers only care if operation is successful or not.
Bill Venners: You mentioned
scalability and versioning concerns
with respect to checked exceptions.
Could you clarify what you mean by
those two issues?
Anders Hejlsberg: Let's start with
versioning, because the issues are
pretty easy to see there. Let's say I
create a method foo that declares it
throws exceptions A, B, and C. In
version two of foo, I want to add a
bunch of features, and now foo might
throw exception D. It is a breaking
change for me to add D to the throws
clause of that method, because
existing caller of that method will
almost certainly not handle that
exception.
Adding a new exception to a throws
clause in a new version breaks client
code. It's like adding a method to an
interface. After you publish an
interface, it is for all practical
purposes immutable, because any
implementation of it might have the
methods that you want to add in the
next version. So you've got to create
a new interface instead. Similarly
with exceptions, you would either have
to create a whole new method called
foo2 that throws more exceptions, or
you would have to catch exception D in
the new foo, and transform the D into
an A, B, or C.
Bill Venners: But aren't you breaking
their code in that case anyway, even
in a language without checked
exceptions? If the new version of foo
is going to throw a new exception that
clients should think about handling,
isn't their code broken just by the
fact that they didn't expect that
exception when they wrote the code?
Anders Hejlsberg: No, because in a lot
of cases, people don't care. They're
not going to handle any of these
exceptions. There's a bottom level
exception handler around their message
loop. That handler is just going to
bring up a dialog that says what went
wrong and continue. The programmers
protect their code by writing try
finally's everywhere, so they'll back
out correctly if an exception occurs,
but they're not actually interested in
handling the exceptions.
The throws clause, at least the way
it's implemented in Java, doesn't
necessarily force you to handle the
exceptions, but if you don't handle
them, it forces you to acknowledge
precisely which exceptions might pass
through. It requires you to either
catch declared exceptions or put them
in your own throws clause. To work
around this requirement, people do
ridiculous things. For example, they
decorate every method with, "throws
Exception." That just completely
defeats the feature, and you just made
the programmer write more gobbledy
gunk. That doesn't help anybody.
EDIT: Added more details on the converstaion
Checked exceptions are a controversial issue in general, and in Java in particular (later on I'll try to find some examples for those in favor and opposed to them).
As rules of thumb, exception handling should be something around these guidelines, in no particular order:
For the sake of maintainability, always log exceptions so that when you start seeing bugs, the log will assist in pointing you to the place your bug has likely started. Never leave printStackTrace() or the likes of it, chances are one of your users will get one of those stack traces eventually, and have exactly zero knowledge as to what to do with it.
Catch exceptions you can handle, and only those, and handle them, don't just throw them up the stack.
Always catch a specific exception class, and generally you should never catch type Exception, you are very likely to swallow otherwise important exceptions.
Never (ever) catch Errors!!, meaning: Never catch Throwables as Errors are subclasses of the latter. Errors are problems you will most likely never be able to handle (e.g. OutOfMemory, or other JVM issues)
Regarding your specific case, make sure that any client calling your method will receive the proper return value. If something fails, a boolean-returning method might return false, but make sure the places you call that method are able to handle that.
You should only catch the exceptions you can deal with. For example, if you're dealing with reading over a network and the connection times out and you get an exception you can try again. However if you're reading over a network and get a IndexOutOfBounds exception, you really can't handle that because you don't (well, in this case you wont) know what caused it. If you're going to return false or -1 or null, make sure it's for specific exceptions. I don't want a library I'm using returning a false on a network read when the exception thrown is the heap is out of memory.
Exceptions are errors that are not part of normal program execution. Depending on what your program does and its uses (i.e. a word processor vs. a heart monitor) you will want to do different things when you encounter an exception. I have worked with code that uses exceptions as part of normal execution and it is definitely a code smell.
Ex.
try
{
sendMessage();
if(message == success)
{
doStuff();
}
else if(message == failed)
{
throw;
}
}
catch(Exception)
{
logAndRecover();
}
This code makes me barf. IMO you should not recover from exceptions unless its a critical program. If your throwing exceptions then bad things are happening.
All of the above seems reasonable, and often your workplace may have a policy. At our place we have defined to types of Exception: SystemException (unchecked) and ApplicationException (checked).
We have agreed that SystemExceptions are unlikely to be recoverable and will bve handled once at the top. To provide further context, our SystemExceptions are exteneded to indicate where they occurred, e.g. RepositoryException, ServiceEception, etc.
ApplicationExceptions could have business meaning like InsufficientFundsException and should be handled by client code.
Witohut a concrete example, it's difficult to comment on your implementation, but I would never use return codes, they're a maintenance issue. You might swallow an Exception, but you need to decide why, and always log the event and stacktrace. Lastly, as your method has no other processing it's fairly redundant (except for encapsulation?), so doactualStuffOnObject(p_jsonObject); could return a boolean!
After some thought and looking at your code it seems to me that you are simply rethrowing the exception as a boolean. You could just let the method pass this exception through (you don't even have to catch it) and deal with it in the caller, since that's the place where it matters. If the exception will cause the caller to retry this function, the caller should be the one catching the exception.
It can at times happen that the exception you are encountering will not make sense to the caller (i.e. it's a network exception), in which case you should wrap it in a domain specific exception.
If on the other hand, the exception signals an unrecoverable error in your program (i.e. the eventual result of this exception will be program termination) I personally like to make that explicit by catching it and throwing a runtime exception.
If you are going to use the code pattern in your example, call it TryDoSomething, and catch only specific exceptions.
Also consider using an Exception Filter when logging exceptions for diagnostic purposes. VB has language support for Exception filters. The link to Greggm's blog has an implementation that can be used from C#. Exception filters have better properties for debuggability over catch and rethrow. Specifically you can log the problem in the filter and let the exception continue to propagate. That method allows an attaching a JIT (Just in Time) debugger to have the full original stack. A rethrow cuts the stack off at the point it was rethrown.
The cases where TryXXXX makes sense are when you are wrapping a third party function that throws in cases that are not truly exceptional, or are simple difficult to test without calling the function. An example would be something like:
// throws NumberNotHexidecimalException
int ParseHexidecimal(string numberToParse);
bool TryParseHexidecimal(string numberToParse, out int parsedInt)
{
try
{
parsedInt = ParseHexidecimal(numberToParse);
return true;
}
catch(NumberNotHexidecimalException ex)
{
parsedInt = 0;
return false;
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
// Implement the error policy for unexpected exceptions:
// log a callstack, assert if a debugger is attached etc.
LogRetailAssert(ex);
// rethrow the exception
// The downside is that a JIT debugger will have the next
// line as the place that threw the exception, rather than
// the original location further down the stack.
throw;
// A better practice is to use an exception filter here.
// see the link to Exception Filter Inject above
// http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/ExceptionFilterInjct
}
}
Whether you use a pattern like TryXXX or not is more of a style question. The question of catching all exceptions and swallowing them is not a style issue. Make sure unexpected exceptions are allowed to propagate!
I suggest taking your cues from the standard library for the language you're using. I can't speak for C#, but let's look at Java.
For example java.lang.reflect.Array has a static set method:
static void set(Object array, int index, Object value);
The C way would be
static int set(Object array, int index, Object value);
... with the return value being a success indicator. But you're not in C world any more.
Once you embrace exceptions, you should find that it makes your code simpler and clearer, by moving your error handling code away from your core logic. Aim to have lots of statements in a single try block.
As others have noted - you should be as specific as possible in the kind of exception you catch.
If you're going to catch an Exception and return false, it should be a very specific exception. You're not doing that, you're catching all of them and returning false. If I get a MyCarIsOnFireException I want to know about it right away! The rest of the Exceptions I might not care about. So you should have a stack of Exception handlers that say "whoa whoa something is wrong here" for some exceptions (rethrow, or catch and rethrow a new exception that explains better what happened) and just return false for others.
If this is a product that you'll be launching you should be logging those exceptions somewhere, it will help you tune things up in the future.
Edit: As to the question of wrapping everything in a try/catch, I think the answer is yes. Exceptions should be so rare in your code that the code in the catch block executes so rarely that it doesn't hit performance at all. An exception should be a state where your state machine broke and doesn't know what to do. At least rethrow an exception that explains what was happening at the time and has the caught exception inside of it. "Exception in method doSomeStuff()" isn't very helpful for anyone who has to figure out why it broke while you're on vacation (or at a new job).
My strategy:
If the original function returned void I change it to return bool. If exception/error occurred return false, if everything was fine return true.
If the function should return something then when exception/error occurred return null, otherwise the returnable item.
Instead of bool a string could be returned containing the description of the error.
In every case before returning anything log the error.
Some excellent answers here. I would like to add, that if you do end up with something like you posted, at least print more than the stack trace. Say what you were doing at the time, and Ex.getMessage(), to give the developer a fighting chance.
try/catch blocks form a second set of logic embedded over the first (main) set, as such they are a great way to pound out unreadable, hard to debug spaghetti code.
Still, used reasonably they work wonders in readability, but you should just follow two simple rules:
use them (sparingly) at the low-level to catch library handling issues, and stream them back into the main logical flow. Most of the error handling we want, should be coming from the code itself, as part of the data itself. Why make special conditions, if the returning data isn't special?
use one big handler at the higher-level to manage any or all of the weird conditions arising in the code that aren't caught at a low-level. Do something useful with the errors (logs, restarts, recoveries, etc).
Other than these two types of error handling, all of the rest of the code in the middle should be free and clear of try/catch code and error objects. That way, it works simply and as expected no matter where you use it, or what you do with it.
Paul.
I may be a little late with the answer but error handling is something that we can always change and evolve along time. If you want to read something more about this subject I wrote a post in my new blog about it. http://taoofdevelopment.wordpress.com
Happy coding.