Bah -“你必须在每个重写equals()的类中重写hashCode()。”

[出自Joshua Bloch的《Effective Java》?］

Isn't this the wrong way round? Overriding hashCode likely implies you're writing a hash-key class, but overriding equals certainly does not. There are many classes that are not used as hash-keys, but do want a logical-equality-testing method for some other reason. If you choose "equals" for it, you may then be mandated to write a hashCode implementation by overzealous application of this rule. All that achieves is adding untested code in the codebase, an evil waiting to trip someone up in the future. Also writing code you don't need is anti-agile. It's just wrong (and an ide generated one will probably be incompatible with your hand-crafted equals).

他们肯定应该在被写来用作键的对象上强制设置一个接口吗?无论如何，Object永远不应该提供默认的hashCode()和equals() imho。它可能鼓励了许多破碎的散列集合。

但无论如何，我认为“规则”是前后颠倒的。与此同时，我将继续避免使用“等号”进行相等性测试方法:-(

class A {
    int i;
    // Hashing Algorithm
    if even number return 0 else return 1
    // Equals Algorithm,
    if i = this.i return true else false
}

put('key'，'value')将使用hashCode()计算哈希值来确定 桶，并使用equals()方法查找该值是否已经 出现在桶里。如果不是，它将被添加，否则它将被替换为当前值 get('key')将使用hashCode()首先找到条目(桶) equals()来查找Entry中的值

如果两者都被覆盖，

地图<A>

Map.Entry 1 --> 1,3,5,...
Map.Entry 2 --> 2,4,6,...

If =没有被覆盖

地图<A>

Map.Entry 1 --> 1,3,5,...,1,3,5,... // Duplicate values as equals not overridden
Map.Entry 2 --> 2,4,6,...,2,4,..

如果hashCode没有被覆盖

地图<A>

Map.Entry 1 --> 1
Map.Entry 2 --> 2
Map.Entry 3 --> 3
Map.Entry 4 --> 1
Map.Entry 5 --> 2
Map.Entry 6 --> 3 // Same values are Stored in different hasCodes violates Contract 1
So on...

HashCode等价契约

根据equal方法，两个相等的键应该生成相同的hashCode 生成相同hashCode的两个key不需要相等(在上面的例子中，所有偶数生成相同的hashCode)

你必须重写hashCode()在每个 重写equals()的类。失败 这样做会导致违反 总合同 Object.hashCode()，它将防止 你的类不能正常运行 结合所有基于哈希的 集合，包括HashMap， HashSet和Hashtable。 摘自Joshua Bloch的《Effective Java》

通过一致地定义equals()和hashCode()，可以提高类作为基于散列的集合中的键的可用性。正如hashCode的API文档所解释的那样:“支持此方法是为了受益于诸如java.util.Hashtable所提供的哈希表。”

关于如何有效地实现这些方法的问题，最好的答案是建议你阅读《Effective Java》的第3章。

它在使用值对象时很有用。以下摘自Portland Pattern Repository:

Examples of value objects are things like numbers, dates, monies and strings. Usually, they are small objects which are used quite widely. Their identity is based on their state rather than on their object identity. This way, you can have multiple copies of the same conceptual value object. So I can have multiple copies of an object that represents the date 16 Jan 1998. Any of these copies will be equal to each other. For a small object such as this, it is often easier to create new ones and move them around rather than rely on a single object to represent the date. A value object should always override .equals() in Java (or = in Smalltalk). (Remember to override .hashCode() as well.)

Bah -“你必须在每个重写equals()的类中重写hashCode()。”

[出自Joshua Bloch的《Effective Java》?］

Isn't this the wrong way round? Overriding hashCode likely implies you're writing a hash-key class, but overriding equals certainly does not. There are many classes that are not used as hash-keys, but do want a logical-equality-testing method for some other reason. If you choose "equals" for it, you may then be mandated to write a hashCode implementation by overzealous application of this rule. All that achieves is adding untested code in the codebase, an evil waiting to trip someone up in the future. Also writing code you don't need is anti-agile. It's just wrong (and an ide generated one will probably be incompatible with your hand-crafted equals).

他们肯定应该在被写来用作键的对象上强制设置一个接口吗?无论如何，Object永远不应该提供默认的hashCode()和equals() imho。它可能鼓励了许多破碎的散列集合。

但无论如何，我认为“规则”是前后颠倒的。与此同时，我将继续避免使用“等号”进行相等性测试方法:-(

如果重写equals()而不是hashcode()，则不会发现任何问题，除非您或其他人在HashSet等散列集合中使用该类类型。 在我之前的人已经清楚地解释了很多次文献理论，我只是在这里提供一个非常简单的例子。

考虑一个类，它的equals()需要表示自定义的东西:-

    public class Rishav {

        private String rshv;

        public Rishav(String rshv) {
            this.rshv = rshv;
        }

        /**
        * @return the rshv
        */
        public String getRshv() {
            return rshv;
        }

        /**
        * @param rshv the rshv to set
        */
        public void setRshv(String rshv) {
            this.rshv = rshv;
        }

        @Override
        public boolean equals(Object obj) {
            if (obj instanceof Rishav) {
                obj = (Rishav) obj;
                if (this.rshv.equals(((Rishav) obj).getRshv())) {
                    return true;
                } else {
                    return false;
                }
            } else {
                return false;
            }
        }

        @Override
        public int hashCode() {
            return rshv.hashCode();
        }

    }

现在考虑这个主类:-

    import java.util.HashSet;
    import java.util.Set;

    public class TestRishav {

        public static void main(String[] args) {
            Rishav rA = new Rishav("rishav");
            Rishav rB = new Rishav("rishav");
            System.out.println(rA.equals(rB));
            System.out.println("-----------------------------------");

            Set<Rishav> hashed = new HashSet<>();
            hashed.add(rA);
            System.out.println(hashed.contains(rB));
            System.out.println("-----------------------------------");

            hashed.add(rB);
            System.out.println(hashed.size());
        }

    }

这将产生以下输出:-

    true
    -----------------------------------
    true
    -----------------------------------
    1

我对结果很满意。但是如果我没有覆盖hashCode()，它将导致噩梦，因为具有相同成员内容的Rishav对象将不再被视为唯一的hashCode将是不同的，因为由默认行为生成，这里将是输出:-

    true
    -----------------------------------
    false
    -----------------------------------
    2