

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer

I read some code of a colleague and found that he often catches various exceptions and then always throws a 'RuntimeException' instead. I always thought this is very bad practice. Am I wrong?

share|improve this question
"The price of checked exceptions is an Open/Closed Principle violation. If you throw a checked exception from a method in your code and the catch is three levels above, you must declare that exception in the signature of each method between you and the catch. This means that a change at a low level of the software can force signature changes on many higher levels." —Robert C. Martin, «Clean Code», page 107 – Songo Nov 9 '14 at 11:10

12 Answers 12

I do not know enough context to know whether your colleague is doing something incorrectly or not, so I am going to argue about this in a general sense.

I do not think it is always an incorrect practice to turn checked exceptions into some flavor of runtime exception. Checked exceptions are often misused and abused by developers.

It is very easy to use checked exceptions when they are not meant to be used (unrecoverable conditions, or even control flow). Especially if a checked exception is used for conditions from which the caller cannot recover, I think it is justified to turn that exception to a runtime exception with a helpful message/state. Unfortunately in many cases when one is faced with an unrecoverable condition, they tend to have an empty catch block which is one of the worst things you can do. Debugging such an issue is one of the biggest pains a developer can encounter.

So if you think that you are dealing with a recoverable condition, it should be handled accordingly and the exception should not be turned into a runtime exception. If a checked exception is used for unrecoverable conditions, turning it into a runtime exception is justified.

share|improve this answer
In most real-life applications, there are very few unrecoverable conditions. There's nearly alwas some level at which you can and should say "OK, this action failed, so we show/log a nice error message and continue with / wait for the next one". – Michael Borgwardt Nov 24 '11 at 13:31
That's true, @MichaelBorgwardt, but the place for that sort of handling is often at the very highest level of the application, so whenever I see developers "handling" exceptions at lower levels, it's usually easy to remove their handling and just percolate the exception upwards. For example, a web framework like JSF catches exceptions at the highest level, prints log messages, and continues processing other requests (not saying the default handling is suitable, just an example). – DavidS Sep 11 '15 at 21:20

It can be GOOD. Please read:

Most of the time, client code cannot do anything about SQLExceptions. Do not hesitate to convert them into unchecked exceptions. Consider the following piece of code:

public void dataAccessCode(){
      ..some code that throws SQLException
  }catch(SQLException ex){

This catch block just suppresses the exception and does nothing. The justification is that there is nothing my client could do about an SQLException. How about dealing with it in the following manner?

public void dataAccessCode(){
       ..some code that throws SQLException
   }catch(SQLException ex){
       throw new RuntimeException(ex);

This converts SQLException to RuntimeException. If SQLException occurs, the catch clause throws a new RuntimeException. The execution thread is suspended and the exception gets reported. However, I am not corrupting my business object layer with unnecessary exception handling, especially since it cannot do anything about an SQLException. If my catch needs the root exception cause, I can make use of the getCause() method available in all exception classes as of JDK1.4.

Throwing checked exceptions and not being able to recover from it is not helping.

Some people even think that checked exceptions should not be used at all. See

Recently, several well-regarded experts, including Bruce Eckel and Rod Johnson, have publicly stated that while they initially agreed completely with the orthodox position on checked exceptions, they've concluded that exclusive use of checked exceptions is not as good an idea as it appeared at first, and that checked exceptions have become a significant source of problems for many large projects. Eckel takes a more extreme view, suggesting that all exceptions should be unchecked; Johnson's view is more conservative, but still suggests that the orthodox preference for checked exceptions is excessive. (It's worth noting that the architects of C#, who almost certainly had plenty of experience using Java technology, chose to omit checked exceptions from the language design, making all exceptions unchecked exceptions. They did, however, leave room for an implementation of checked exceptions at a later time.)

Also from the same link:

The decision to use unchecked exceptions is a complicated one, and it's clear that there's no obvious answer. The Sun advice is to use them for nothing, the C# approach (which Eckel and others agree with) is to use them for everything. Others say, "there's a middle ground."

share|improve this answer

No, you are not wrong. His practice is extremely misguided. You should throw an exception that captures the issue that caused it. RunTimeException is broad and over reaching. It should be a NullPointerException, ArgumentException, etc. Whatever accurately describes what went wrong. This provides the ability to differentiate issues that you should handle and let the program survive versus errors that should be a "Do not pass go" scenario. What he is doing is only slightly better than "On Error Resume Next" unless there is something missing in the info provided in the question.

share|improve this answer
@Gary Buyn: many people think that checked exception are a failed language design experiment and they are the ones that should be used sparingly, not as a matter of habit. – Michael Borgwardt Nov 23 '11 at 20:17
@Gary Buyn: Here's an article that outlines the debate pretty well: Note also that over 15 years after Java introduced this feature, no other language has adopted it, and C++ has deprecated a similar feature. – Michael Borgwardt Nov 23 '11 at 20:56
@c_maker: Actually, Bloch mostly promotes the orthodox view, and your comment seems to be mainly about using more exceptions, period. My view is that the only valid reason to use a checked exception is for a condition that you expect all callers to handle immediately. – Michael Borgwardt Nov 24 '11 at 13:26
Prove it. I have never ever seen any guidelines that say catch an exception and throw some generic exception with no meaning. You can wrap an exception and propagate something meaningful but the OP didn't say that is what is happening. He says he is just tossing a random runtime exception which will make it a living hell for someone to debug down the road. – Rig Jan 9 '12 at 22:58
Unnecessary throwing checked exceptions violates encapsulation. What do you do, if a simple method like 'getAccounts()' throws you an 'SQLException', 'NullPointerException' or 'FileNotFoundException'? Can you handle it? Youll probably just 'catch(Exception e){}' it. Besides, those exceptions - its implementation specific! It should not be a part of the contract! All you need to know is that there was an error. And what if the implementation changes? Suddenly everything has to change, cause the method no longer throws 'SQLException', but an 'ParseXMLException' instead! – K.L. Nov 15 '12 at 15:32

It depends.

This practice may be even wise. There are many situations (for example in web developement), where if some exception happens, you are unable to do anything (because you cannot for example repair inconsistent DB from your code :-), only developer can do it). In these situations, it is wise to wrap the thrown exception into a runtime exception a rethrow it. Than you can catch all these exceptions in some exception handling layer, log the error and display the user some nice localized error code + message.

On the other hand, if the exception is not runtime (is checked), the developer of the API indicates, that this exception is resolvable and should be repaired. If its possible, than you should definitely do it.

The other solution might be to rethrow this checked exception into the calling layer, but if you were unable to solve it, where the exception occured, you will be likely unable to solve it here also...

share|improve this answer
You hope that the developer of the API knew what s/he was doing and used checked exceptions well. I started seeing APIs that favor throwing runtime exceptions while also documenting it so the client has the option to catch it if it wants to. – c_maker Nov 23 '11 at 22:31
A method which throws an exception cannot generally know if a caller might recover from it. On the other hand, I would suggest that a method should only let a checked exception thrown by an inner method to escape if knows why the inner method threw the exception, and the reason is consistent with the outer method's API. If an inner method throws a checked exception unexpectedly, letting it bubble up as a checked exception may leave the caller misinformed as to what happened. – supercat Jul 9 '14 at 20:10
Thank you for mentioning the exception handling layer -- e.g. in a webapp, a filter. – Jake Toronto Oct 3 '14 at 17:11

I would like to get comments on this, but I find there are times when this isn't necessarily bad practice. (Or terribly bad). But maybe i am wrong.

Often times an API you are using will throw an exception that you can't imagine actually being thrown in your specific usecase. In this case, it seems perfectly fine to throw a RuntimeException with the caught exception as the cause. If this exception is thrown, it'll likely be the cause of programming error and isn't inside the bounds for correct specification.

Assuming the RuntimeException isn't later caught and ignored, it's no where near an OnErrorResumeNext.

The OnErrorResumeNext would occur when someone catches an exception and simply ignores it or just prints it out. This is terribly bad practice in almost all cases.

share|improve this answer
This might be the case near the top of the call tree, where the only thing you can do is try to recover gracefully and knowing the specific error won't really help. In that case, you may have to record the error and move on (process next record, inform user that an error occurred, etc). Otherwise, no. You should always handle exceptions as close to the error as is practical, not wrap them up as a white elephant for the next handler. – Michael K Nov 23 '11 at 19:47

I am pretty annoyed (and shocked) with the rest of the answers here so I have decided to answer this myself.

TL;DR If you don't know how to handle a checked exception in the current scope then propagate it, don't crash the application.

When is it appropriate to throw a runtime exception? You throw a runtime exception when it is clear that the code is incorrect, and that recovery is appropriate by modifying the code.

For instance, it is appropriate to throw a runtime exception for the following:

float nan = 1/0;

This will throw a division by zero runtime exception. This is appropriate because the code is defective.

Or for instance, here's a portion of HashMap's constructor:

public HashMap(int initialCapacity, float loadFactor) {
    if (initialCapacity < 0)
        throw new IllegalArgumentException("Illegal initial capacity: " + initialCapacity);
    if (initialCapacity > MAXIMUM_CAPACITY)
        initialCapacity = MAXIMUM_CAPACITY;
    if (loadFactor <= 0 || Float.isNaN(loadFactor))
        throw new IllegalArgumentException("Illegal load factor: " +
    // more irrelevant code...

In order to fix the initial capacity or load factor, it is appropriate that you edit the code to ensure that the correct values are being passed in. It is not dependent on some far away server being up, on the current state of the disk, a file, or another program. That constructor being called with invalid arguments depends on the correctness of the calling code, be it a wrong calculation that led to the invalid parameters or inappropriate flow that missed an error.

When is it appropriate to throw a checked exception? You throw a checked exception when the issue is recoverable without changing the code. Again, I'll rephrase to make it clearer -- you throw a checked exception when the error is related to state while the code is correct.

Now the word "recover" may be tricky here. It could mean that you find another way to achieve the goal. Like, for instance, if the server doesn't respond then you should try the next server. If that sort of recovery is possible for your case then that's great, by all means do it. But that's not exactly what it means -- recovery could simply be displaying an error dialog to the user that explains what happened, or if that's a server application then it could be sending an email to the administrator, or even merely logging the error appropriately and concisely.

I'm not feeling very creative at the moment, so let's take the example that was mentioned in mrmuggles' answer:

public void dataAccessCode(){
       ..some code that throws SQLException
   }catch(SQLException ex){
       throw new RuntimeException(ex);

This sort of abomination is not the correct way to handle the checked exception. The mere incapacity to handle the exception in this method's scope does not mean that the app should be crashed. Instead, it is appropriate to propagate it to a higher scope like so:

public Data dataAccessCode() throws SQLException {
    // some code that communicates with the database

Which allows for the possibility of recovery by the caller:

public void loadDataAndShowUi() {
    try {
        Data data = dataAccessCode();
    } catch(SQLException e) {
        // RECOVER by showing an error alert dialog

Propagation is one of the reasons for which checked exceptions are great. It allows you to pass the handling of the error to the application layer with ease, and it ensures that no portions of the error flow will be ignored. Rethrowing the exception as a runtime exception is working against this wonderful feature.

It is also worth mentioning that in contrast to popular opinion, the calling layer has a better context of the grander scheme of things as has been demonstrated above. There could be many causes for that dataAccessCode will be called, the specific reason for the call is only visible to the caller -- thus it is able to make a better decision at the correct recovery upon failure.

A different (more article-like) version of this answer has been published on ##java at Freenode blog.

share|improve this answer

For standalone applications. When you know your application cannot handle the exception you could, instead of throwing the checked RuntimeException, throw Error, let the application crash, hope for bug-reports, and fix your application. (See the answer of mrmuggles for a more in depth discussion of the pro's and con's of checked versus unchecked.)

share|improve this answer

This is common practice in many frameworks. E.g. Hibernate does exactly this. The idea is that the APIs should not be intrusive for client side and Exception are intrusive since you must explicitly write code to handle them at that place where you call the api. But that place might not be the right place to handle the exception in the first place.
Actually to be honest this is a "hot" topic and many dispute so I will not take a side but I will say that what your friend does/proposes is not un-ordinary or uncommon.

share|improve this answer

This might depend on case to case basis. In certain scenarios it is wise to do what your friend is doing, for example when you are exposing an api for some clients and you want the client to be least aware of the implementation details, where you know that certain implementation exceptions may be specific to implementation details and not exposable to the client.

By keeping the checked exceptions out of the way, you can expose api's that would enable the client to write cleaner code as the client itself might be pre-validating the exceptional conditions.

For example Integer.parseInt(String) takes a string and returns the integer equivalent of it and throws NumberFormatException in case the string is not numeric. Now imagine a form submission with a field age is converted through this method but the client would have already ensured validation on its part, so there's no point forcing the check of exception.

share|improve this answer

There are really a couple of questions here

  1. Should you transform checked exceptions into unchecked ones?

The general rule of thumb is that exceptions that the caller is expected to catch and recover from should be checked. Other exceptions (ones where the only reasonable outcome is to abort the whole operation or where you consider them unlikely enough that worrying about handling them specifically is not worth it) should be unchecked.

Sometimes your judgement on whether an exception deserves catching and recovery is different from that of the API you are working with. Sometimes context matters, an exception that is worth handling in one situation may not be worth handling in another. Sometimes your hand is forced by existing interfaces. So yes there are legitimate reasons to turn a checked exception into an unchecked exception (or to a different type of checked exception)

  1. If you are going to turn an unchecked exception into a checked exception how should you do it.

Firstly and most importantly make sure you use the exception chaining facility. That way the information from the original exception is not lost and can be used for debugging.

Secondly you have to decide what exception type to use. Using a plain runtimeexception makes it harder for the caller to determine what went wrong but if the caller is trying to determine what went wrong that may be an indication that you should not have changed the exception to make it unchecked.

share|improve this answer

The whole "checked exception" thing is a bad idea.

Structured programming only allows information to be passed between functions (or, in Java parlance, methods) when they are "nearby". More precisely, information can only move across functions in two ways:

  1. From a caller to a callee, via argument passing.

  2. From a callee to its caller, as return values.

This is a fundamentally good thing. This is what allows you to reason about your code locally: if you need to understand or modify a part of your program, you only need to look at that part and other "nearby" ones.

However, in some circumstances, it is necessary to send information to a "distant" function, without anyone in the middle "knowing". This is precisely when exceptions have to be used. An exception is a secret message sent from a raiser (whatever part of your code might contain a throw statement) to a handler (whatever part of your code might contain a catch block that is compatible with the exception that was thrown).

Checked exceptions destroy the secrecy of the mechanism, and, with it, the very reason for its existence. If a function can afford to let its caller "know" a piece of information, just send that piece of information directly as a part of the return value.

share|improve this answer
It might be good to mention that this sort of issue can really wreak havoc in cases where a method runs a function which is supplied by its caller. The author of the method receiving the function will in many cases have no reason to know nor care what the caller is expecting it to do, nor what exceptions the caller might be expecting. If the code receiving the method isn't expecting it to throw a checked exception, the method being supplied may have to wrap any checked exceptions it would throw in unchecked exceptions that its supplier could then catch. – supercat Jul 27 '15 at 18:06

In my opinion,

In the framework level, we should be catch runtime exceptions to reduce more block of try catch to the invoker in the same place.

In the application level, we rarely capture runtime exceptions and i think this practice was bad.

share|improve this answer
And what will you do with those exceptions at the framework level ? – Matthieu Dec 13 '11 at 1:15
If there is a UI layer in the framework that can handle the exceptions, then the UI would present an error message of some sort that something went wrong. In the case of an one-page javascript app, the app could present an error message. Granted, the UI layer should handle the error only if a deeper layer really can't recover from the error. – Jake Toronto Oct 3 '14 at 17:14

protected by gnat Feb 25 at 14:20


Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
