This week's giveaway is in the EJB and other Java EE Technologies forum. We're giving away four copies of EJB 3 in Action and have Debu Panda, Reza Rahman, Ryan Cuprak, and Michael Remijan on-line! See this thread for details.
If you call a method that throws an exception the programmer must
1) wrap the call to the method in a try statement
and catch the exception OR
2) ensure the calling method throws the same Exception
as the method that is being called.
I have read the following theory with respect to Exceptions.
I need the following statement confirmed.
Proposition: Whether a call needs to be
1) wrapped in a 'try-catch' block or
2) whether the enclosing method requires a throws clause
depends on the class of reference and not the class of the actual object.
Can someone confirm if the above proposition is true or false?
Thomas Hauck wrote:Can someone confirm if the above proposition is true or false?
This seems to be about right. Remember it is only checked-exceptions that need to be caught or declared with a throws clause. Also if the method declares it in a throws clause each calling method all the way back to the main method must also declare it for the code to compile.
I think it is also okay for a super-class to catch the Exception. So, in other words the exact checked-exception thrown does not need to be caught or declared though catching or declaring the exact exception is a better coding practice from what I understand.