Convert checked exception into unchecked exception

Hi friends
I am little confused, When deciding on checked exceptions vs. unchecked exceptions. I went through the net. they are telling that
Use checked exceptions when the client code can take some useful recovery action based on information in exception. Use unchecked exception when client code cannot do anything.
Here what is the client code. which is the best way is checked exception good or is unchecked exception good or shall i simply tell catch(Exception e){...} or do i have to tell the particular exception like catch(SQLException) {..} instead of mentioning catch(excetpion){....}. I am so much confused...
Could you please tell me how to convert this code from checked exception into unchecked exception.
Connection con = null;
try {
     Class.forName("com.mysql.jdbc.Driver").newInstance();
     con = DriverManager.getConnection("jdbc:mysql://localhost:3306/test",
     "root", "sheik");
     if(!con.isClosed())
     System.out.println("Successfully connected to " +
     "MySQL server using TCP/IP...");
     PreparedStatement ps = con.prepareStatement("DELETE FROM EMPLOYEE WHERE ID=?");
     ps.setInt(1, 3);     
     System.out.println(ps.executeUpdate());
     } catch(Exception e) {
     System.err.println("Exception: " + e.getMessage());
     } finally {
     try {
     if(con != null)
     con.close();
     } catch(SQLException e) {
          System.out.println(e);
Thanks and Regards
Sherin Pooja

pierrot_2 wrote:
I think the words CHECKED and UNCHECKED are misleading.How so? Checked exceptions are those that are checked for by the compiler--requiring either catch or declare, and unchecked exceptions are those that the compiler doesn't check for and hence can be thrown anywhere without a catch or declare.
When a program can't deal with a situation at all, subclasses of <tt>Error</tt> are thrown and the program should terminate. When a program should continue to run, despite an anomaly of some sort, then programs should throw subclasses of <tt>Exception</tt>.No.
When there's a normal exceptional condition that can't be avoided simply by good coding--loss of network connection, disk full, insufficient permissions for an operatiion, and so on--throw a checked exception, that is, a subclass of Exception that is not a subclass of RuntimeException, such as IOExceptoin.
When there's a bug in your code, or in the caller of your code, or in some other code that you use, such as not ensuring preconditions are met, throw RuntimeException or a subclass. These are all unchecked. You generally do not catch these except at major layer boundaries.
When there's an internal error that the JVM has a good chance of not being able to recover from, such as running out of memory, Error or one of its subclasses is thrown. These are also unchecked, and it's pretty rare to explicitly throw one of these from code that you write. You generally do not catch these, except at major layer boundaries, and even then, probably in fewer situations than when you'd catch RuntimeException.

Similar Messages

  • Software to Convert Check #s into an Electronic File

    I have a stack of several thousand checks where I need to get the check #s into an electronic format (such as Excel) so that I can run them through a query.  Is there an easier/faster way to accomplish this than manually typing in every check # into a program?  I can easily have all the checks scanned and didn't know if there was some sort of OCR tech that could read the check #s off the checks and store them?

    I have a stack of several thousand checks where I need to get the check #s into an electronic format (such as Excel) so that I can run them through a query.  Is there an easier/faster way to accomplish this than manually typing in every check # into a program?  I can easily have all the checks scanned and didn't know if there was some sort of OCR tech that could read the check #s off the checks and store them?

  • Converting Check amount into numericals..Need help asap

    Any one pls!!
    I need to convert hundred dollars and thiryseven cents INTO
    hundred dollars and 37/100.How can I achieve this?
    I have this and this dont work at all..?I am running out of time
    <?template:Header4?>
    <?xdofx:Rpad(((substr(UPPER(../PaymentAmountText),1,
    instr(../PaymentAmountText,' ',-1*(length(../PaymentAmountText)-
    (instr(../PaymentAmountText,'And')))-3,1))||'AND '||
    decode(instr(decode(instr(../PaymentAmount/Value,'.'),0,'00',substr(../PaymentAmount/Value,-2)),'.'),1,
    (substr(decode(instr(../PaymentAmount/Value,'.'),0,'00',substr(../PaymentAmount/Value,-2)),-1) || '0'),
    decode(instr(../PaymentAmount/Value,'.'),0,'00',substr(../PaymentAmount/Value,-2)))||'/100')),75,'-')?>
    <?end template?>
    appreciate your help
    prasanna

    Hi ,
    I think you have to write a pl/sql function for before or after report trigger and call it in your data defination file .
    If you want i will send you the script for converting number to words.
    Regards
    Ratnesh

  • "checked" exceptions

    Hi !
    Well.. My method throws a bunch of uncheckeds.. but I would like for the compiler to check the callers code for exception handlers (i.e. catch clauses). SO THAT I DONT MISS THEM (have bugs) -> (type safety)
    ... in other words: if add a throws clause describing the possible throwing of an unchecked, does the exception become "sort of checked", despite being instance of RuntimeException ?
    Is this guaranteed by the JLS ?
    What is the default behaviour ?
    In this case I have EntityExistsException, NonUniqueResultException, NoResultException, where they signal not a programmer error, rather than expected application state. E.g. user is already registered (EntityExistsException).
    Thanks.

    javaUserMuser wrote:
    Yeah, thanks, but those semantics are obvious.Well, then what's your question?
    What I mean is, I'd love to use those uncheckeds for exceptional conditions signalling, cos the semantics they signal (e.g. in the JPA spec) for their purpose match those I implement.
    Non existent user is being signalled via EntityExistsException in my code, as well as NoResultException for no user registered with the name supplied.
    The thing is: should I define a checked variant for every unchecked exception I find useful ?There's no cut an dried answer. There are arguments in in favor of both using checked exceptions and moving away from them to strictly unchecked.
    I probably wouldn't have a 1-to-1 mapping of every unchecked exception. If you're going to define your own, whether checked or unchecked, do so in a way that is meaningful and useful to the callers of your code. So you might several exceptions, both checked and unchecked, into a single "CouldNotRetrieveException," if your code doesn't expose the details of how it does its work, and your callers aren't likely to be able to be able to use the knowledge of the specific underlying exception.
    My method contract says: throw THIS exception when THIS error, and THAT ex when THAT error.. I am simply allowing the JPA provider thrown exceptions to propagate naturally to the caller, which I find very clean and neat - no catch an exception to throw another one - for a clean API design. The problem is if I can enforce the caller of my method to catch (or supply a throws clause for) my method's thrown exceptions.You already know the answer to that, clearly, since, in your words, "those semantics are obvious."
    There is an extreme example which indicates why I dont want to introduce anymore custom exceptions indicating a given problem:
    .. what if I define an exception class for every stack trace element ? What if I catch every exception thrown by a method call, wrap it with another class then throw an instance of the latter.
    Thats very, very ugly, and a bad practice.
    On the other hand, obviously I have no choice, and define a checked exception, but should I name it e.g. NoSuchUserException, or rather NoResultCheckedException (and thus make it more general, which is the thing I am aiming at).Your call. I can't answer that without knowing more about your code than I do or care to.

  • Checked Exception and Anonymous classes

    Hi I am refering to java certification book that says : If a checked exception is thrown during the execution of initializer expression, then it has to be caught and handled. This restriction does not apply to instance initializer expressions in anonymous classes.
    I have codes for the above statement but failed to get the correct result. Is there some problem with the code :
    class RoomOccupancyTooHighException extends RuntimeException {} // (1) Unchecked Exception
    class TooManyHotelsException extends Exception {}           // (2) Checked Exception
    class base
         public void fun()
              System.out.println("base");
    class derived
         public static base funtion()
              return new base()
                                       int a = fu();
                                       int fu()
                                            if(a==1)
                                            throw new TooManyHotelsException();
                                            return 100;
                                       public void fun()
                                            System.out.println("derived");
         public static void main(String str[])
              base b = funtion();
              b.fun();
    }

    In anonynous class initialisation you don't need to declare the exception but you still need to handle it in the calling code.
    The code you provided does not compile for that reason.

  • Best practices for checked exceptions in Runnable.run

    Runnable.run cannot be modified to pass a checked exception to its parent, so it must deal with any checked exceptions that occur. Simply logging the error is inadequate, and I am wondering if there are any "best practices" on how to deal with this situation.
    Let me give a real-world example of what I'm talking about.
    When writing I/O code for a single-threaded app, I'll break the logic into methods, and declare these methods as throwing an IOException. Basically, I'll ignore all exceptions and simply pass them up the stack, knowing that Java's checked exception facility will force the caller to deal with error conditions.
    Some time later, I might try to improve performance by making the I/O code multithreaded. But now things get tricky because I can no longer ignore exceptions. When I refactor the code into a Runnable, it cannot simply toss IOExceptions to some future unnamed caller. It must now catch and handle the IOException. Of course, dealing with the problem by simply catching and logging the exception is bad, because the code that spawned the I/O thread won't know that anything went wrong. Instead, the I/O thread must somehow notify its parent that the exception occurred. But just how to do this is not straightforward.
    Any thoughts? Thanks.

    My suggestion: don't use Threads and Runnables like this.
    Instead implement Callable which can throw any Exception.
    Then use an ExecutorService to run that Callable.
    This will return a Future object which can throw an ExecutionException on get(), which you can then handle.
    This has the additional advantage that you can easily switch from a single-threaded serialized execution to a multi-threaded one by switching ExecutorService implementations (or even by tweaking the parameters of the ExecutorService implementation).

  • What makes subclass of exception checked exception

    Hi
    When I make a exception class
    class TestException extends Exception{}
    This exception is a "checked exception". Understood
    But the predefined java class RunTimeException is also a subclass of Exception what makes it an unchecked exception. Does compiler treat this class differently.
    How I can make unchecked exception class when I extend my custom exception class from Exception.
    Thanks
    Abhishek

    >
    But the predefined java class RunTimeException is also a subclass of Exception what makes it an unchecked exception. Does compiler treat this class differently.
    How I can make unchecked exception class when I extend my custom exception class from Exception.
    >
    The answer to both of these questions can be found in Chapter 11.2 'Compile-Time Checking of Exceptions of the Java Language Specification. Suggest you read the entire section.
    http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se5.0/html/exceptions.html
    >
    The unchecked exceptions classes are the class RuntimeException and its subclasses, and the class Error and its subclasses. All other exception classes are checked exception classes.
    >
    These two other subsections give the reasons the designers of Java made the choices above
    >
    11.2.4 Why Errors are Not Checked
    11.2.5 Why Runtime Exceptions are Not Checked

  • Does overuse of Checked exceptions really annoy you?

    Im a big advocate for using Runtime exceptions for programming errors (e.g, violations of pre-conditions etc).
    I find it really annoying when checked exceptions are overused to 'enforce you to do something about your programming error'.
    Ive been on projects where an underyling 'untrust' of some developers ability to read an API to obtain pre conditions has led to a prolification of checked exceptions in central APIs.
    e.g, Im a strong beliver (as I expect most are), that this is correct:
    if(myContainer.contains(someKey)) {
      // Throws 'NoSuchObject' which is a RuntimeException if not contained
      myObject = myContainer.getSomeObject();
    }and that this is not:
      if(myContainer.contains(someKey)) {
        try {
          myObject = myContainer.getSomeObject();
        catch(NoSuchObjectException) {
          // Typical 'This Cant Happen' comment (uurrgghhh...)
      }This basically comes from tech-leads having a lack of trust in the ability of some developers to unit test their classes properly.
    However, it leads to absolutely horrendous code!
    Has any one encountered this anti-pattern on their projects?
    And what Im alluding to.... Has anyone managed to come up with a completely convincing argument to remove it?

    There's a place for checked exceptions, but not usually for programming errors. That's why NullPointerException is unchecked. But checked exceptions for catching things beyond the programmer's control can also run amuck. Here's an example of code I have in production:try {
      dq.write(translator.toBytes(s));
    } catch(IllegalObjectTypeException _ex) {
      throw new ScannerException(_ex.getMessage());
    } catch(InterruptedException _ex) {
      throw new ScannerException(_ex.getMessage());
    } catch(IOException _ex) {
      throw new ScannerException(_ex.getMessage());
    } catch(AS400SecurityException _ex) {
      throw new ScannerException(_ex.getMessage());
    } catch(ErrorCompletingRequestException _ex) {
      throw new ScannerException(_ex.getMessage());
    } catch(ObjectDoesNotExistException _ex) {
      throw new ScannerException(_ex.getMessage());
    }The "dq" variable refers to a DataQueue object from IBM's JTOpen product for AS/400 connectivity. Okay, there's a lot of things that could go wrong in this case, but in practice everybody is just going to log the fact that something went wrong and shut down. Six different exceptions is just overkill -- I suppose I could just catch Exception but that isn't a good practice either.

  • What is uncaught checked exceptions ?

    Hi
    Can any one tell me what are "uncaught checked exceptions" ? I have read checked and unchecked exception but "uncaught" checked exceptions ? not getting clear on it ???
    ALso I can understand classes and subclasses of Throwable but "Uncaught Checked Exception"... whats this ??? Are they some of checked exceptions only ???
    Can any one explain ???

    when you call a method that throws a checked exception, you have to either catch it or declare to throw it on yourself. when you do neither, the compiler reminds you that you have an uncaught checked exception.

  • MSI K8N 2 NEO Platinum with AMD 4200+ X2 Machine Check Exception

    Greetings,
    I recently bought a 4200+ x2 and when i replaced my Venice 3500+ by it i get a Machine Check Exception when windows xp Professionnel is about to load. But when i go back to my Venice everything working properly. any ideas what could cause such a trouble?
    my PSU is a ANTEC 550W, i don't think i'm in need of any more power and more i got it recently, so it's almost new and never got problem with it before.
    thanks.

    I think that you have to cleanly reinstall your Windows XP Pro operating system for it to recognize consistently dual core cpu.  What bios do you use?  Does CPU-Z say that you have one processor or two in Processor Selection at bottom of CPU Tab?  Good luck.

  • Checked exceptions design question

    Hi,
    I'm writing an RMI replacement which has similar semantics and I have the following design problem:
    - A client invokes server.method(myList)- myList is of type List and is actually a Remote object which resides on the client code. So when the server method uses this list, it is actually communicating back with the client and sending resulting back and forth.
    - The server code is defined as
    public Server
      public void method(List myList)
        // A network error occurs while trying to access myList
    }Ideally I'd like to throw RemoteException from the list in case of a network error, but I can't do that because RemoteException is a checked exception and cannot be added to the List interface (it would break its contract). So I was thinking maybe that the list should throw a custom Error if an I/O occurs and then my framework would catch it at the end of the method and throw RemoteException back on the client-end of things. I am uncomfortable throwing and catching an Error but I don't want the server-code to try to catch the thrown exception either. As far as I can tell, if a RemoteException occurs from inside the list, there is absolutely no way for the server code to recover. It can't request a new method argument from the client and therefore it must always simply rethrow the exception. What do you think? Do you have a better idea?
    Thanks,
    Gili

    The term client and server is relative. Whoever is hosting the remove object I consider to be the server for that object. So if the client exports an object and sends it to the server, then in this case, the client is the host or "server" for that object.
    So in this case the receiver of the object is the one that has to deal with the exception. However, the receiver can pass the exception back to the caller if it chooses. I don't see any reason for your "server" to fail because it could not successfully invoke a method on an object from your "client." If your client requests the server to do something, and the server could not, the server just tosses an exception back to the client. I may be missing your problem!?
    For hibernate, handling hibernate failures is a bit different from handling remote failures. In either case, I let the client deal with it. My remote interfaces look like so
    public interface INamedObject extends Remote {
         public String getName() throws RemoteException;
         public DSID getIdentifier() throws RemoteException;
         public void setName(String name) throws  RemoteException, ServerException;
        public Set<? extends IPropertyType> getPropertyKeys() throws  RemoteException, ServerException ;
        public Map<? extends IPropertyType,? extends String> getProperties() throws  RemoteException, ServerException ;
        public String getProperty(IPropertyType key) throws  RemoteException, ServerException ;
        public String setProperty(IPropertyType key, String value) throws  RemoteException, ServerException;
        public String removeProperty(IPropertyType key) throws  RemoteException, ServerException ;
    }The methods that do not require any hibernate activity generally just throw RemoteExceptions. However, the ones that do hibernate stuff also throw ServerException which is my own custom exception. Its just a serializable class. When the client gets a ServerException it knows that its not a connection problem, but a problem with the server itself. Such as the db crashed or some other thing.
    Note that my objects have identifiers. So if you make a call on a remote object, and it fails, you reestablish the connection to the server, then re-request that remote object using the identifier, then try the request on it again. For distributed computing you need to be able to handle this IMHO.

  • Incorrect faultstring for checked exception from JAX-RPC Sun App server 8.1

    I am trying to throw a checked exception in a web service. The checked exception object has a constructor that takes a single custom bean java class argument. It also has a get/setter for that argument .
    Here's the exception class:
    package com.innovativ.esp.websvc;
    public class ValidationException extends Exception implements java.io.Serializable{
    private Test test;
    public ValidationException(Test test) {
    super("from testb set ");
    this.test = test;
    public Test getTest() {
    return this.test;
    public void setTest(Test test) {
    this.test = test;
    The SAOP message for fault is shown as below:
    <env:Envelope xmlns:env="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:enc="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/" xmlns:ns0="urn:Service/types">
    <env:Body>
    <env:Fault xsi:type="env:Fault">
    <faultcode>env:Server</faultcode>
    <faultstring>com.innovativ.esp.websvc.ValidationException</faultstring>
    <detail><ns0:ValidationException><message>from testb set </message></ns0:ValidationException>
    </detail>
    </env:Fault>
    </env:Body>
    </env:Envelope>
    The server side JAX-RPC is not sending the "Test" object in the detail part...
    Any idea why it's not including the "Test" in message.
    Thank you for any help....

    Here's the WSDL for the service :
    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><definitions xmlns="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/" xmlns:tns="urn:Service/wsdl" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:soap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/" xmlns:ns2="urn:Service/types" name="Service" targetNamespace="urn:Service/wsdl">
    <types>
    <schema xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:tns="urn:Service/types" xmlns:soap11-enc="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:wsdl="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/" targetNamespace="urn:Service/types">
    <complexType name="sayHelloResponse">
    <sequence>
    <element name="result" type="string" nillable="true"/></sequence></complexType>
    <complexType name="ValidationException">
    <sequence>
    <element name="test" type="tns:Test" nillable="true"/></sequence></complexType>
    <complexType name="Test">
    <sequence>
    <element name="prop" type="string" nillable="true"/></sequence></complexType>
    <element name="sayHello" type="tns:sayHello"/>
    <element name="sayHelloResponse" type="tns:sayHelloResponse"/>
    <element name="ValidationException" type="tns:ValidationException"/></schema></types>
    <message name="IFServiceWS_sayHello">
    <part name="parameters" element="ns2:sayHello"/></message>
    <message name="IFServiceWS_sayHelloResponse">
    <part name="result" element="ns2:sayHelloResponse"/></message>
    <message name="ValidationException">
    <part name="ValidationException" element="ns2:ValidationException"/></message>
    <portType name="IFServiceWS">
    <operation name="sayHello">
    <input message="tns:IFServiceWS_sayHello"/>
    <output message="tns:IFServiceWS_sayHelloResponse"/>
    <fault name="ValidationException" message="tns:ValidationException"/></operation></portType>
    <binding name="IFServiceWSBinding" type="tns:IFServiceWS">
    <soap:binding transport="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/http" style="document"/>
    <operation name="sayHello">
    <soap:operation soapAction=""/>
    <input>
    <soap:body use="literal"/></input>
    <output>
    <soap:body use="literal"/></output>
    <fault name="ValidationException">
    <soap:fault name="ValidationException" use="literal"/></fault></operation></binding>
    <service name="Service">
    <port name="IFServiceWSPort" binding="tns:IFServiceWSBinding">
    <soap:address location="http://localhost:5050/ESP/Service" xmlns:wsdl="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/"/></port></service>
    </definitions>

  • Does any one know a good package with checked exceptions?

    Hey,
    Today in a place that i work there is a lot of use in checked exception and there is no good reuse in exception. For each case a new check exception is created.
    i want to eliminate the checked exception types in the system, so i want to recognize the common cases of checked exceptions like :
    Required
    Validation and etc
    The best will be to find a package (like jackarta) that has those common cases or any other good reference in order to get ideas.
    Thank you

    AvihaiMar wrote:
    they are not sufficient
    i excpect from exception like validation exception to have the following fields (some of them optional):
    class name
    field name
    given data
    expected value
    additional information
    i am looking for any framework that already did this job.
    That really looks like a system that doesn't understand the difference between exceptional states and normal error conditions to me.
    If a user enters 13 for the month in a date field that is NOT an exception. Users are expected to enter invalid data. Thus it is not exceptional.
    Conversely if your GUI client is sending data to the server then the server should not, normally, expect to see a 13 for the month. It might happen but it should be so rare that it should not require anything different than if a order request came in which didn't actually have any items in it (substantially different type of exceptional situation but still something the server would not expect.)
    Now there are situations where you might, as a matter of convenience choose to use exceptions (as a class) to handle normal conditions. However such exceptions should be specific to a layer if common and very uncommon if they cross layer boundaries. And those specific to a layer are unlikely to have the same properties of those in another layer.
    This of course is applicable to an application of which most software is in the world and thus most programmers would be working on that.
    If you should find yourself in the unique position of being a library developer then a modified position would be required. A library developer is NOT someone who creates a 'library' for an application. Instead it is someone who delivers as a final product code that is ONLY intended to be used in other applications and only when there is more than one application.

  • Checked exception

    Hi
    What is the reason why we do not have to catch checked Exceptions in a JSP page?

    The J2EE reference implementation creates page implementation classes which enclose all scripting elements in a
    try {
    catch (Throwable t) {
      pageContext.handlePageException(t);
    }That would explain one level of "why". The larger design question is a mystery to me--I would guess that it's a convenience feature, so that one may easily pass page-level exceptions to the container for handling (e.g. to map it to your error page, or some HTTP Status 500 page).
    Is that something you found in a specification or observed in an implementation?

  • Removal of Checked Exceptions

    Since we've been on the topic of future changes to Java ... does anyone else get frustrated when the little Anders Florgenborgenites start with their C# preachiness:
    "Java needs to get rid of checked exceptions, because C# doesn't have them!"
    [sarcasm]
    I mean, he did make a good point when he said: "Everybody just writes:
    try { .... } catch (Exception e) { }.
    Nobody ever handles exceptions, so why do we need them?"
    [sarcasm]
    (Those retarded "properties" thingies will be left for a later discussion...)

    I mean, he did make a good point when he said: "Everybody just writes:hmm, haven't done that (except in a few cases where the exception is expected like in testcases and in those cases I comment my decision) in years...
    At the very least the exception is logged and rethrown as an application specific exception. Usually more is done (if possible).
    His entire "proposal" (which springs from the problem he has reconsiling checked exceptions and closures btw, he can't find a way to create closures that throw checked exceptions therefore checked exceptions should go to make place for closures, which we've already decided in that other thread are pretty much useless) is flawed.
    Just because some people don't know how to use something properly we should prohibit that thing being done at all? And that combined with wanting something introduced that will be abused badly to replace something else that's also abused but has less potential for abuse than the new stuff he wants?

Maybe you are looking for