This is what I'm trying to do:
try {
//code
} catch (Exception e) {
return false;
} finally {
//close resources
}
Will this work? Is it bad practice? Would it be better doing this:
boolean inserted = true;
try {
//code
} catch (Exception e) {
inserted = false;
} finally {
//close resources
}
return inserted;
Yes, it will. The only things that can prevent a finally block to execute (AFAIR) are System.exit(), and an infinite loop (and a JVM crash, of course).
Thread#stop will not prevent the finally from executing.
The finally block is executed always, unconditionally, as the last thing the try-catch-finally block does. Even if you execute Thread#stop against it, the finally block will still execute, just as if a regular exception ocurred.
Not just that, if you return from finally, that return value will trample over the return from either try or catch.
BTW Your first example is not just fine, but preferred. In the second example the reader must chase around the assignments to the variable, which is a tedious job and lets bugs slip through very easily.
..btw part ,i think is better to have only one return statement but that brings me to find about that here (where did the notion of one return only come from)[programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/118703/…Both are approximately the same. However, be careful with the following case:
int i = 0;
try
{
//code
}
catch(Exception e)
{
return i;
}
finally
{
i = 1;
}
0 is what will be returned.
I just wanted to add that it's described in the specs:
If the catch block completes abruptly for reason R, then the finally block is executed.
where of course
It can be seen, then, that a return statement always completes abruptly.
