Is it possible to declare that a Supplier<T> needs to throw an Exception?

Edit

As pointed many times, you don't need any custom class, use Callable and Runnable instead

Wrong, outdated solution

Consider this generic solution:

// We need to describe supplier which can throw exceptions @FunctionalInterface public interface ThrowingSupplier<T> { T get() throws Exception; } // Now, wrapper private <T> T callMethod(ThrowingSupplier<T> supplier) { try { return supplier.get(); } catch (Exception e) { throw new RuntimeException(e); } return null; } // And usage example String methodThrowsException(String a, String b, String c) throws Exception { // do something } String result = callMethod(() -> methodThrowsException(x, y, z)); 

• If you would do that, you wouldn't be able to use it as a Supplier as it would only throw UnsupportedOperationException.

• Considering the above, why not create a new interface and declare the getWithIO method in it?

  @FunctionalInterface public interface SupplierWithIO<T> { public T getWithIO() throws IOException; } 

• Perhaps some things are better of as old-style Java interfaces? Old-style Java isn't gone just because there's Java 8 now.

In the lambda mailing list this was throughly discussed. As you can see Brian Goetz suggested there that the alternative is to write your own combinator:

Or you could write your own trivial combinator:

static<T> Block<T> exceptionWrappingBlock(Block<T> b) { return e -> { try { b.accept(e); } catch (Exception e) { throw new RTE(e); } }; } 

You can write it once, in less that the time it took to write your original e-mail. And similarly once for each kind of SAM you use.

I'd rather we look at this as "glass 99% full" rather than the alternative. Not all problems require new language features as solutions. (Not to mention that new language features always causes new problems.)

In those days the Consumer interface was called Block.

I think this corresponds with JB Nizet's answer suggested by Marko above.

Later Brian explains why this was designed this way (the reason of problem)

Yes, you'd have to provide your own exceptional SAMs. But then lambda conversion would work fine with them.

The EG discussed additional language and library support for this problem, and in the end felt that this was a bad cost/benefit tradeoff.

Library-based solutions cause a 2x explosion in SAM types (exceptional vs not), which interact badly with existing combinatorial explosions for primitive specialization.

The available language-based solutions were losers from a complexity/value tradeoff. Though there are some alternative solutions we are going to continue to explore -- though clearly not for 8 and probably not for 9 either.

In the meantime, you have the tools to do what you want. I get that you prefer we provide that last mile for you (and, secondarily, your request is really a thinly-veiled request for "why don't you just give up on checked exceptions already"), but I think the current state lets you get your job done.

Since I have an additional point to make on this subject, I have decided to add my answer.

You have the choice to write a convenience method which either:

1. wraps a checked-exception-throwing lambda into an unchecked one;
2. simply calls the lambda, unchecking the exception.

With the first approach, you need one convenience method per functional method signature, whereas with the second approach, you need a total of two methods (except for primitive-returning methods):

static <T> T uncheckCall(Callable<T> callable) { try { return callable.call(); } catch (Exception e) { return sneakyThrow(e); } } static void uncheckRun(RunnableExc r) { try { r.run(); } catch (Exception e) { sneakyThrow(e); } } interface RunnableExc { void run() throws Exception; } 

This allows you to insert a call to one of these methods passing in a nullary lambda, but one which is closing over any arguments of the outside lambda, which you are passing to your original method. This way you get to leverage the automatic lambda conversion language feature without boilerplate.

For example, you can write

stream.forEachOrdered(o -> uncheckRun(() -> out.write(o))); 

compared to

stream.forEachOrdered(uncheckWrapOneArg(o -> out.write(o))); 

I have also found that overloading the wrapping method name for all lambda signatures often leads to ambiguous lambda expression errors. So you need longer distinct names, resulting in ever longer code char-for-char than with the above approach.

In the end, note that the said approach still doesn't preclude writing simple wrapper methods which reuse uncheckedRun/Call, but I found it simply uninteresting because the savings are negligible at best.

I added my own solution, not neccessarilly a direct answer to my question, which introduces the following after some revisions:

@FunctionalInterface public interface CheckedSupplier<T, E extends Exception> { public T get() throws E; } private <R> R getFromConfig(final String entryKey, final Function<String, R> converter) throws IOException { Objects.requireNonNull(entryKey); Objects.requireNonNull(converter); configLastModified = Files.getLastModifiedTime(configFile); return ConfigFileUtils.readFileEntry(configFile, entryKey, converter); } private <T> T handleIOException(final CheckedSupplier<T, IOException> supplier) { Objects.requireNonNull(supplier); try { return supplier.get(); } catch (IOException ex) { throw new IllegalStateException("The config file (\"" + configFile + "\") has not been found."); } } 

This were all one-time only declarations, now I add two variants of the calling code:

private Duration durationFromConfig() { return handleIOException(() -> getFromConfig(subClass.getSimpleName(), Duration::of)); } private int threadsFromConfig() { return handleIOException(() -> getFromConfig(subClass.getSimpleName() + "Threads", Integer::parseInt)); } 

I am not too happy about converting an IOException to an UncheckedIOException, as:

1. I would need to add an unchecked variant of every method that can throw an IOException.
2. I prefer obvious handling of the IOException, instead of relying on hoping that you do not forget to catch the UncheckedIOException.

We can use this generic solution also. Any type of exception we handle by this approach.

 @FunctionalInterface public interface CheckedCall<T, E extends Throwable> { T call() throws E; } public <T> T logTime(CheckedCall<T, Exception> block) throws Exception { Stopwatch timer = Stopwatch.createStarted(); try { T result = block.call(); System.out.println(timer.stop().elapsed(TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)); return result; } catch (Exception e) { throw e; } }