Exception Handling Challenge

There are those who like to AvoidExceptionsWheneverPossible. There are others who hate this attitude. Let's try to depolarize the discussion with some code.

In ExtremeProgrammingInPractice, we see the following algorithm:
Try to add a new user to the database, and email them their new password. If either of the above steps fail, redirect the user to a web page explaining what happened. Also, if the emailing fails, delete the user from the database.

Before jumping to solutions let's observe that the above is not an algorithm, it is a specification of a requirement (business rule), probably a UserStory or half of it in XP jargon.

Second, the specification is not well-defined. Within the scope of a single interaction with the user (it's talking about redirecting the user to an error page), these things absolutely cannot be accomplished: you cannot make a transaction of the first two actions (inserting into the database and sending an email), and you cannot reliably detect if the email failed in such a short time span (it may take hours or even days); even if it fails, it's hard to make sure that the user is deleted because then the delete must fail.

{Monitoring returned/bounced emails would generally be a separate operation.}

What is needed here is a workflow scenario, not a transaction scenario, which will render the problem of how to handle exceptions moot. Further clarifications are welcome. Hopefully, it's not another typical book/toy example that doesn't have any relation to reality and encourages sloppy thinking in software practice.

Why not put the explanation page up anyway, but have a link to click in the email that confirms and actually initiates the account?... which would make this a definite 'state machine' type situation... but no one seems to have voted for that yet... oh well, the road less travelled by... -- BillWeston

The requirements, though reasonable, are more complicated than any exception-handling situation I've come across in four years of Java coding. A simple try...catch...finally construct almost always suffices, but not in this case.

Isn't this the case of a long running transaction? I wouldn't attempt this with simple exception handling, like try-catch-finally. -- LuizEsmiralha

Increment the number of your favorite to vote: If you can think of other options, please post them and mention their pros/cons. If you want to use a language feature that Java doesn't have, feel free to write the code in a language that does.

For some entries, see:

An offsite link with a good comparison of various techniques in C++ exists at: http://www.vollmann.ch/en/pubs/cpp-excpt-alt.html

Throw/Catch Exceptions

 try {
	 mailPassword(email, password);
 } catch(DatabaseFailure e) {
 } catch(EmailFailure e) {
	 UserDatabase.delete(email); //This can also fail !!!
Pros: Cons: How is it obvious that the DatabaseFailure exception is emitted from UserDatabase.add(), and that EmailFailure is emitted from mailPassword()? Is it not better style to wrap each potentially throwing function call in its own try/catch block? In this case, how is Throw/Catch Exceptions any better than testing error codes?

Unless both methods throw the same exceptions you don't need separate try/catch blocks for each call. Is this what you mean?

I think that the question is - how can the reader tell which calls might throw which exceptions? The example is (reasonably) clear, but I recently worked on code that had one try block with about 5 catches, and eleven function calls inside the try(); each function would throw exceptions on failure cases. During initial testing (not UnitTesting, alas), I was hard pressed to find which function was failing, because the exception names were not immediately relatable to the calls that threw them, and the log statements were subclassed so that I had to search header files to find what was failing. Not the best way to make it easy to track the errors down. -- PeteHardie

The caller should not need to know which call throw the exceptions, because exceptions should describe why things failed, not what thing failed (e.g., FileNotFoundException vs CannotReadConfigFileException. I have seen codes that throws ConstructionException from constructors, the only way to handle those is to dump the error and exit, since you never know why it failed to recover). If you really need to know which call failed to properly handle the error, put them in separate try-blocks. If you only need to know to debug it, look at the stack trace.

If you use EclipseIde, turn on "Mark Occurrences" in the Java editor preferences. Then put your cursor on an exception named in a catch clause. Every method in the try block that can throw that exception will be highlighted.


    void handle_database_failure() {
        redirect("databasefailure"); // assuming this jumps somewhere (bad idea, but same as in the Try/Catch example)

void handle_email_failure() { UserDatabase.delete(email, handle_database_failure); redirect("mailfailure"); }

User'Database.add(user, handle_database_failure); mailPassword(email, password, handle_email_failure); redirect("success");

Note that in this scheme we can't be affected by the very error that appeared in the original Try/Catch example above (where an un-handled database error could have been raised in the error handler block for the EmailFailure). See PassAnErrorHandler for details. --MikeAmy?

Strategy Example

 NewUserNotifier notifier = new NewUserNotifier(user);
 delete notifier;

A variation of the NullObject example, where the notifier maintains its state via a StrategyPattern, delegating the relevant methods to the appropriate strategy object. For example, if attemptToAddUser() fails, then the updated strategy object's sendPasswordEmail() and handlePendingIssues() will do nothing. However, if sendPasswordEmail() fails, then handlePendingIssues() will result in the deletion of the user's record from the database. In either case, redirectWebPage() will redirect to the error page; otherwise, to the success page.

Pros Cons
Use a NullObject

 NewUserNotifier notifier = UserDatabase.add(user);

(FIXME: Someone give me some help with these names - they suck.)

That is: Pros: Cons:

Use a StateMachine

In ALGOL derived languages, this is a pain, but it could look something like:

 enum {
 } eState = ADD_USER;

while( STOP != eState ) { switch( eState ) { case ADD_USER: eState = MAIL_PASSWORD; // Alternatively, eState++; if( !UserDatabase.add(user) ) eState = ERROR; break;

case MAIL_PASSWORD: eState = REDIRECT; // Alternatively, eState++; if( !mailPassword(email, password) ) eState = ERROR; break;

case REDIRECT: eState = STOP; // Alternatively, eState++; if( !redirect("success") ) eState = ERROR; break;

case ERROR: // ERROR! eState = STOP; break; } }
But this is ridiculously stupid. With closures, a state machine is infinitely more elegant simply by using CollectionAndLoopVsSelectionIdiom with lambda thunks (and a little let* magic). Alternatively, one could create state objects in object-oriented BondageAndDisciplineLanguages.

[DeleteMe] Thanks for this crazy entry. One problem, however: It doesn't actually recover from the error conditions. Remember: We need to redirect to the appropriate failure page on failure. Also, if the email fails, the user needs to be deleted from the database. Can you add this handling in to the above code, so that the differences between all the techniques can be highlighted? Thanks!

Pros: Cons:
Result Values AKA ErrorValue

 if (good = addUserToDatabase(user))
   good = emailUser(user);
   if (! good) deleteUserFromDatabase(user);
 if (! good) messageToUser(user);
Note that this does not check the status of the deletion operation, but this does not appear to violate the requirements, which only say a message must be displayed, which is already indicated at that stage here. A fancier version may track which kind of error is encountered in order to properly log it. Here is one approach.

  errMsg = "";  // initialize as blank
  if (! addUserToDatabase(user)) {
     errMsg = "Cannot add user to database";
  if (!length(errMsg) && !emailUser(user))
     errMsg = "Cannot email user";
     if (!deleteUserFromDatabase(user)) {
        errMsg = "Cannot remove user from database after email failure";
  if (length(errMsg)) {

Also, it seems a little strange to delete the user. Perhaps a better approach is to mark that user as "on hold" or the like.

CategoryException, CategoryExample

EditText of this page (last edited August 26, 2011) or FindPage with title or text search