Consider the following code
public class TestCompletableFuture {
BiConsumer<Integer, Throwable> biConsumer = (x,y) -> {
System.out.println(x);
System.out.println(y);
};
public static void main(String args[]) {
TestCompletableFuture testF = new TestCompletableFuture();
testF.start();
}
public void start() {
Supplier<Integer> numberSupplier = new Supplier<Integer>() {
@Override
public Integer get() {
return SupplyNumbers.sendNumbers();
}
};
CompletableFuture<Integer> testFuture = CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(numberSupplier).whenComplete(biConsumer);
}
}
class SupplyNumbers {
public static Integer sendNumbers(){
return 25; // just for working sake its not correct.
}
}
The above thing works fine. However sendNumbers
could also throw a checked exception in my case, like:
class SupplyNumbers {
public static Integer sendNumbers() throws Exception {
return 25; // just for working sake its not correct.
}
}
Now I want to handle this exception as y
in my biConsumer
. This will help me in handling the result as well as exception (if any) inside a single function (biConsumer
).
Any ideas? Can I use CompletableFuture.exceptionally(fn)
here or anything else?
The factory methods using the standard functional interfaces aren’t helpful when you want to handle checked exceptions. When you insert code catching the exception into the lambda expression, you have the problem that the catch clause needs the CompletableFuture
instance to set the exception while the factory method needs the Supplier
, chicken-and-egg.
You could use an instance field of a class to allow mutation after creation, but in the end, the resulting code isn’t clean and more complicated that a straight-forward Executor
-based solution. The documentation of CompletableFuture
says:
- All async methods without an explicit Executor argument are performed using the
ForkJoinPool.commonPool()
…
So you know the following code will show the standard behavior of CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(Supplier)
while handling checked exceptions straight-forward:
CompletableFuture<Integer> f=new CompletableFuture<>();
ForkJoinPool.commonPool().submit(()-> {
try { f.complete(SupplyNumbers.sendNumbers()); }
catch(Exception ex) { f.completeExceptionally(ex); }
});
The documentation also says:
… To simplify monitoring, debugging, and tracking, all generated asynchronous tasks are instances of the marker interface
CompletableFuture.AsynchronousCompletionTask
.
If you want to adhere to this convention to make the solution even more behaving like the original supplyAsync
method, change the code to:
CompletableFuture<Integer> f=new CompletableFuture<>();
ForkJoinPool.commonPool().submit(
(Runnable&CompletableFuture.AsynchronousCompletionTask)()-> {
try { f.complete(SupplyNumbers.sendNumbers()); }
catch(Exception ex) { f.completeExceptionally(ex); }
});