views:

1960

answers:

7

Hey, I'm writing a network application, in which I read packets of some custom binary format. And I'm starting a background thread to wait for incoming data. The problem is, that the compiler doesn't let me to put any code throwing (checked) exceptions into run(). It says:

run() in (...).Listener cannot implement run() in java.lang.Runnable; overridden method does not throw java.io.IOException

I want the exception to kill the thread, and let it be caught somewhere in the parent thread. Is this possible to achieve or do I have to handle every exception inside the thread?

A: 

If you really cannot do anything useful when the exception is raised you can wrap the checked exception in a RuntimeException.

try {
    // stuff
} catch (CheckedException yourCheckedException) {
    throw new RuntimeException("Something to explain what is happening", yourCheckedException);
}
Simon Groenewolt
Always add a description when throwing an exception, even if it just is to wrap. throw new RuntimeException("Wrapping exception to allow it to bubble up to the catcher in foo.bar.Main()", e);The ones called at 3 AM when the code breaks will appreciate it when they stare at the stacktrace.
Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
Good one - I'll add that to the example code.
Simon Groenewolt
A: 

If your thread's code throw a RuntimeExpection, you doesn't need to add run() throw Exception.

But use this solution only when appropriate because this can be a bad pratice: http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/essential/exceptions/runtime.html

Any RuntimeException or unchecked Exception can help you. Maybe you'll need to create your own RuntimeException

Nettogrof
Note that this approach will hide the exception from the parent thread.
erickson
+2  A: 

the thread can't throw the exception to any other thread (nor to the main thread). and you cannot make the inherited run() method throw any checked exceptions since you can only throw less than the inherited code, not more.

rmn
Good point about not being able to directly "throw" the exception to the parent thread.
erickson
A: 

On the assumption that your code is in some kind of loop, you'd write:

public class ThingRunnable implements Runnable {
  public void run() {
    try {
      while(iHaveMorePackets()) { 
        doStuffWithPacket()
      }
    } catch(Exception e) {
      System.out.println("Runnable terminating with exception" + e );
    }
  }
}

The exception will automatically break you out of your loop, and at the end of the run() method, the thread will stop.

AlBlue
Small point: your example has an interface with implementation in it, should probably be "public class ThingRunnable implements Runnable".
Grundlefleck
Thanks, Grundlefleck, you're absolutely right :-) Goes to show what happens when you answer questions before you've had enough coffee in the day. I've updated the text to say 'class' instead.
AlBlue
+2  A: 

What I do is to catch the exception in the thread and store it as a member variable of the Runnable. This exception is then exposed via a getter on the Runnable. I then scan all the threads from the parent to see if any had exceptions, and take the appropriate action.

Don Branson
May I ask (in case my answer is wrong), why store a variable as a getter and scan for it rather than using a listener mechanism?
Grundlefleck
Fair question. Either approach works. I think I'll try your suggestion next time around, and see If I prefer that.
Don Branson
See my comment on Grundlefleck's answer - I believe this solution does actually get the exception handling back in to the parent thread, whereas Grundlefleck's solution doesn't. (Grundlefleck's fixes scope problems - but this one fixes problems that are really related to thread context.)
Jared
+2  A: 

Caveat: this may not meet your needs if you have to use the exception mechanism.

If I understand you correctly, you don't actually need the exception to be checked (you've accepted the answer suggesting an unchecked exception) so would a simple listener pattern be more appropriate?

The listener could live in the parent thread, and when you've caught the checked exception in the child thread, you could simply notify the listener.

This means that you have a way of exposing that this will happen (through public methods), and will be able to pass more information than an exception will allow. But it does mean there will be a coupling (albeit a loose one) between the parent and the child thread. It would depend in your specific situation whether this would have a benefit over wrapping the checked exception with an unchecked one.

Here's a simple example (some code borrowed from another answer):

public class ThingRunnable implements Runnable {
    private SomeListenerType listener;
    // assign listener somewhere

    public void run() {
        try {
            while(iHaveMorePackets()) { 
                doStuffWithPacket();
            }
        } catch(Exception e) {
            listener.notifyThatDarnedExceptionHappened(...);
        }
    }
 }

The coupling comes from an object in the parent thread having to be of type SomeListenerType.

Grundlefleck
Good idea. And yes, you're right, I don't care whether the exception is checked or not, I just wanted a simple way to bring an exception out.
m01
Does the listener code not still actually run in the child thread? I understand that it now has to much of the scope in the parent thread...but it still runs in the child thread.
Jared
It would run in the child thread, but it matches what's been asked for, I think.
Grundlefleck
A: 

To be able to send the exception to the parent thread, you can put your background thread in a Callable (it allows throwing also checked exceptions) which you then pass to the submit method of some Executor. The submit method will return a Future which you can then use to get the exception (its get method will throw an ExecutionException which contains the original exception).

Esko Luontola
This looks too complicated for me. But thank you anyway :)
m01