Jakarta Persistence 3.0，第4.12节写道:

相同抽象模式类型的两个实体当且仅当它们具有相同的主键值时相等。

我看不出为什么Java代码的行为应该有所不同。

If the entity class is in a so called "transient" state, i.e. it's not yet persisted and it has no identifier, then the hashCode/equals methods can not return a value, they ought to blow up, ideally implicitly with a NullPointerException when the method attempts to traverse the ID. Either way, this will effectively stop application code from putting a non-managed entity into a hash-based data structure. In fact, why not go one step further and blow up if the class and identifier are equal, but other important attributes such as the version are unequal (IllegalStateException)! Fail-fast in a deterministic way is always the preferred option.

警告:也要记录下爆发行为。文档本身很重要，但它也希望能够阻止初级开发人员在未来对您的代码做一些愚蠢的事情(他们倾向于压制发生NullPointerException的地方，他们最不关心的是副作用，lol)。

哦，总是使用getClass()而不是instanceof。equals方法要求对称性。如果b等于a，那么a必须等于b。对于子类，instanceof打破了这种关系(a不是b的实例)。

尽管我个人总是使用getClass()，即使在实现非实体类(类型是状态，所以子类添加状态，即使子类是空的或只包含行为)，只有当类是final时，instanceof才会很好。但实体类必须不是最终的(§2.1)，所以我们真的别无选择。

Some folks may not like getClass(), because of the persistence provider's proxy wrapping the object. This might have been a problem in the past, but it really shouldn't be. A provider not returning different proxy classes for different entities, well, I'd say that's not a very smart provider lol. Generally, we shouldn't solve a problem until there is a problem. And, it seems like Hibernate's own documentation doesn't even see it worthwhile mentioning. In fact, they elegantly use getClass() in their own examples (see this).

Lastly, if one has an entity subclass that is an entity, and the inheritance mapping strategy used is not the default ("single table"), but configured to be a "joined subtype", then the primary key in that subclass table will be the same as the superclass table. If the mapping strategy is "table per concrete class", then the primary key may be the same as in the superclass. An entity subclass is very likely to be adding state and therefore just as likely to be logically a different thing. But an equals implementation using instanceof can not necessarily and secondarily rely on the ID only, as we saw may be the same for different entities.

在我看来，instanceof在非final Java类中根本没有位置。对于持久实体来说尤其如此。

我总是重写equals/hashcode，并基于业务id实现它。对我来说这是最合理的解决办法。请看下面的链接。

总而言之，这里列出了处理equals/hashCode的不同方法中哪些是有效的，哪些是无效的:

编辑:

为了解释为什么这对我有用:

I don't usually use hashed-based collection (HashMap/HashSet) in my JPA application. If I must, I prefer to create UniqueList solution. I think changing business id on runtime is not a best practice for any database application. On rare cases where there is no other solution, I'd do special treatment like remove the element and put it back to the hashed-based collection. For my model, I set the business id on constructor and doesn't provide setters for it. I let JPA implementation to change the field instead of the property. UUID solution seems to be overkill. Why UUID if you have natural business id? I would after all set the uniqueness of the business id in the database. Why having THREE indexes for each table in the database then?

If you have a business key, then you should use that for equals and hashCode. If you don't have a business key, you should not leave it with the default Object equals and hashCode implementations because that does not work after you merge and entity. You can use the entity identifier in the equals method only if the hashCode implementation returns a constant value, like this: @Entity public class Book implements Identifiable<Long> { @Id @GeneratedValue private Long id; private String title; @Override public boolean equals(Object o) { if (this == o) return true; if (!(o instanceof Book)) return false; Book book = (Book) o; return getId() != null && Objects.equals(getId(), book.getId()); } @Override public int hashCode() { return getClass().hashCode(); } //Getters and setters omitted for brevity }

看看GitHub上的这个测试用例，它证明了这个解决方案很有魅力。

请考虑以下基于预定义类型标识符和ID的方法。

JPA的具体假设:

具有相同“类型”和相同非空ID的实体被认为是相等的 非持久化实体(假设没有ID)永远不等于其他实体

抽象实体:

@MappedSuperclass
public abstract class AbstractPersistable<K extends Serializable> {

  @Id @GeneratedValue
  private K id;

  @Transient
  private final String kind;

  public AbstractPersistable(final String kind) {
    this.kind = requireNonNull(kind, "Entity kind cannot be null");
  }

  @Override
  public final boolean equals(final Object obj) {
    if (this == obj) return true;
    if (!(obj instanceof AbstractPersistable)) return false;
    final AbstractPersistable<?> that = (AbstractPersistable<?>) obj;
    return null != this.id
        && Objects.equals(this.id, that.id)
        && Objects.equals(this.kind, that.kind);
  }

  @Override
  public final int hashCode() {
    return Objects.hash(kind, id);
  }

  public K getId() {
    return id;
  }

  protected void setId(final K id) {
    this.id = id;
  }
}

具体实体示例:

static class Foo extends AbstractPersistable<Long> {
  public Foo() {
    super("Foo");
  }
}

测试的例子:

@Test
public void test_EqualsAndHashcode_GivenSubclass() {
  // Check contract
  EqualsVerifier.forClass(Foo.class)
    .suppress(Warning.NONFINAL_FIELDS, Warning.TRANSIENT_FIELDS)
    .withOnlyTheseFields("id", "kind")
    .withNonnullFields("id", "kind")
    .verify();
  // Ensure new objects are not equal
  assertNotEquals(new Foo(), new Foo());
}

主要优势:

简单 确保子类提供类型标识 使用代理类预测行为

缺点:

要求每个实体调用super()

注:

使用继承时需要注意。例如，类A和类B扩展A的实例相等性可能取决于应用程序的具体细节。 理想情况下，使用业务密钥作为ID

期待您的评论。

我过去一直使用选项1，因为我知道这些讨论，并认为在我知道正确的事情之前最好什么都不做。这些系统仍在成功运行。

但是，下次我可能会尝试选项2 -使用数据库生成的Id。

如果未设置id, Hashcode和equals将抛出IllegalStateException。

这将防止涉及未保存实体的细微错误意外出现。

人们对这种方法有什么看法?

如果你想对你的set使用equals()/hashCode()，也就是说同一个实体只能出现一次，那么只有一个选项:选项2。这是因为根据定义，实体的主键永远不会改变(如果有人确实更新了它，它就不再是同一个实体了)

您应该从字面上理解:因为equals()/hashCode()是基于主键的，所以在设置主键之前，您不能使用这些方法。所以你不应该把实体放到集合里，直到它们被赋主键。(是的，uuid和类似的概念可能有助于早期分配主键。)

Now, it's theoretically also possible to achieve that with Option 3, even though so-called "business-keys" have the nasty drawback that they can change: "All you'll have to do is delete the already inserted entities from the set(s), and re-insert them." That is true - but it also means, that in a distributed system, you'll have to make sure, that this is done absolutely everywhere the data has been inserted to (and you'll have to make sure, that the update is performed, before other things occur). You'll need a sophisticated update mechanism, especially if some remote systems aren't currently reachable...

只有当集合中的所有对象都来自同一个Hibernate会话时，才可以使用选项1。Hibernate文档在13.1.3章中非常清楚地说明了这一点。考虑对象同一性:

Within a Session the application can safely use == to compare objects. However, an application that uses == outside of a Session might produce unexpected results. This might occur even in some unexpected places. For example, if you put two detached instances into the same Set, both might have the same database identity (i.e., they represent the same row). JVM identity, however, is by definition not guaranteed for instances in a detached state. The developer has to override the equals() and hashCode() methods in persistent classes and implement their own notion of object equality.

它继续主张选择3:

这里有一个警告:永远不要使用数据库标识符来实现相等。使用由唯一的、通常是不可变的属性组合而成的业务键。如果将瞬态对象持久化，则数据库标识符将更改。如果瞬态实例(通常与分离实例一起)保存在Set中，更改hashcode将破坏Set的契约。

这是真的，如果你

不能提前分配id(例如使用uuid) 当对象处于瞬态时，你肯定想把它们放到集合中。

否则，您可以自由选择选项2。

然后它提到了相对稳定性的需求:

业务键的属性不必像数据库主键那样稳定;只要对象在同一集合中，你就必须保证稳定性。

这是正确的。我所看到的实际问题是:如果你不能保证绝对的稳定性，你如何能够保证“只要对象在同一个集合中”的稳定性。我可以想象一些特殊的情况(比如只在对话中使用集合，然后将其丢弃)，但我会质疑这种方法的一般实用性。

短版:

选项1只能用于单个会话中的对象。 如果可以，使用选项2。(尽早分配PK，因为在分配PK之前你不能在集合中使用对象。) 如果你能保证相对的稳定性，你可以使用选项3。但是要小心。