Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 8100743
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: June 5, 20262026-06-05T22:49:42+00:00 2026-06-05T22:49:42+00:00

I usually like to declare my local variables as final but I see repeating

  • 0

I usually like to declare my local variables as final but I see repeating patterns where I cannot do this when I have to handle an exception during its initialization.

For ex I have this code:

final Client myClient = library.getClient("service");
//do a bunch of steps with myClient

But I end up modifying it very often like this:

Client myClient = null;
try {
    myClient = library.getClient("service");
} catch (someException ex) {
    // handle
    throw ex;
}
// do stuff with myClient

I do not want to add the catch after I do all the stuff as it becomes a bit unreadable as it is towards the end. So is there a better way to do this?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-06-05T22:49:43+00:00Added an answer on June 5, 2026 at 10:49 pm

    You can put the try/catch in a separate method:

    . . .
        final Client myClient = getClient();
    
    private Client getClient() {
        try {
            return library.getClient("service");
        catch (someException ex) {
            // handle
            return null;
        }
    }
    

    If it doesn’t make sense for the processing to continue in the method that calls getClient(), then the other option is to declare it to throw the exception and get rid of the try/catch block.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I have been seeing code like this usually in the start of header files:
When performing many inserts into a database I would usually have code like this:
I usually have my structure laid out something like this: <div id=all> <div id=page>
I have a query like this: use DataIncremental go DECLARE @row_terminator CHAR; SET @row_terminator
I usually use like this $ find -name testname.c ./dir1/dir2/testname.c $ vi ./dir1/dir2/testname.c it's
I usually write something like this: <mx:VBox height=100% width=155> <mx:Button label=b1 width=100%/> <mx:Buttonlabel=b2 width=100%/>
When I write an SQL statement, I usually write it like this SELECT COUNT(*)
With a classic method implementation, I usually perform BeginInvoke like this: private delegate void
I usually have to check things like: if ['Bob','Mary','John'].include? @user.name Is there a way
I usually see this question asked the other way, such as Must every ivar

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.