我们通常在实体中有两个id:

仅用于持久化层(以便持久化提供程序和数据库能够找出对象之间的关系)。 是为了我们的应用程序需要(特别是equals()和hashCode())

来看看:

@Entity
public class User {

    @Id
    private int id;  // Persistence ID
    private UUID uuid; // Business ID

    // assuming all fields are subject to change
    // If we forbid users change their email or screenName we can use these
    // fields for business ID instead, but generally that's not the case
    private String screenName;
    private String email;

    // I don't put UUID generation in constructor for performance reasons. 
    // I call setUuid() when I create a new entity
    public User() {
    }

    // This method is only called when a brand new entity is added to 
    // persistence context - I add it as a safety net only but it might work 
    // for you. In some cases (say, when I add this entity to some set before 
    // calling em.persist()) setting a UUID might be too late. If I get a log 
    // output it means that I forgot to call setUuid() somewhere.
    @PrePersist
    public void ensureUuid() {
        if (getUuid() == null) {
            log.warn(format("User's UUID wasn't set on time. " 
                + "uuid: %s, name: %s, email: %s",
                getUuid(), getScreenName(), getEmail()));
            setUuid(UUID.randomUUID());
        }
    }

    // equals() and hashCode() rely on non-changing data only. Thus we 
    // guarantee that no matter how field values are changed we won't 
    // lose our entity in hash-based Sets.
    @Override
    public int hashCode() {
        return getUuid().hashCode();
    }

    // Note that I don't use direct field access inside my entity classes and
    // call getters instead. That's because Persistence provider (PP) might
    // want to load entity data lazily. And I don't use 
    //    this.getClass() == other.getClass() 
    // for the same reason. In order to support laziness PP might need to wrap
    // my entity object in some kind of proxy, i.e. subclassing it.
    @Override
    public boolean equals(final Object obj) {
        if (this == obj)
            return true;
        if (!(obj instanceof User))
            return false;
        return getUuid().equals(((User) obj).getUuid());
    }

    // Getters and setters follow
}

编辑:澄清我关于调用setUuid()方法的观点。下面是一个典型的场景:

User user = new User();
// user.setUuid(UUID.randomUUID()); // I should have called it here
user.setName("Master Yoda");
user.setEmail("yoda@jedicouncil.org");

jediSet.add(user); // here's bug - we forgot to set UUID and 
                   //we won't find Yoda in Jedi set

em.persist(user); // ensureUuid() was called and printed the log for me.

jediCouncilSet.add(user); // Ok, we got a UUID now

当我运行测试并看到日志输出时，我解决了这个问题:

User user = new User();
user.setUuid(UUID.randomUUID());

或者，也可以提供一个单独的构造函数:

@Entity
public class User {

    @Id
    private int id;  // Persistence ID
    private UUID uuid; // Business ID

    ... // fields

    // Constructor for Persistence provider to use
    public User() {
    }

    // Constructor I use when creating new entities
    public User(UUID uuid) {
        setUuid(uuid);
    }

    ... // rest of the entity.
}

我的例子是这样的:

User user = new User(UUID.randomUUID());
...
jediSet.add(user); // no bug this time

em.persist(user); // and no log output

我使用默认构造函数和setter，但您可能会发现双构造函数方法更适合您。

阅读这篇关于主题的非常好的文章:不要让Hibernate窃取您的身份。

文章的结论是这样的:

Object identity is deceptively hard to implement correctly when objects are persisted to a database. However, the problems stem entirely from allowing objects to exist without an id before they are saved. We can solve these problems by taking the responsibility of assigning object IDs away from object-relational mapping frameworks such as Hibernate. Instead, object IDs can be assigned as soon as the object is instantiated. This makes object identity simple and error-free, and reduces the amount of code needed in the domain model.

这是每个使用Java和JPA的IT系统中的常见问题。痛点不仅仅是实现equals()和hashCode()，它还影响组织引用实体的方式以及其客户机引用同一实体的方式。我已经看够了没有商业钥匙的痛苦，以至于我写了自己的博客来表达我的观点。

简而言之:使用一个简短的、人类可读的、带有有意义前缀的顺序ID作为业务键，该ID生成时不依赖于RAM以外的任何存储。Twitter的雪花就是一个很好的例子。

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?

业务密钥方法不适合我们。我们使用DB生成的ID、临时临时tempId和重写equal()/hashcode()来解决这个困境。所有实体都是Entity的后代。优点:

DB中没有额外字段 在后代实体中没有额外的编码，一种方法适用于所有的实体 没有性能问题(如UUID)， DB Id生成 使用hashmap没有问题(不需要记住equal & etc的使用)。 新实体的Hashcode即使在持久化后也不会及时更改

缺点:

序列化和反序列化非持久化实体可能会出现问题 从DB重新加载后，保存的实体的Hashcode可能会改变 非持久化对象被认为总是不同的(也许这是对的?) 还有什么?

看看我们的代码:

@MappedSuperclass
abstract public class Entity implements Serializable {

    @Id
    @GeneratedValue
    @Column(nullable = false, updatable = false)
    protected Long id;

    @Transient
    private Long tempId;

    public void setId(Long id) {
        this.id = id;
    }

    public Long getId() {
        return id;
    }

    private void setTempId(Long tempId) {
        this.tempId = tempId;
    }

    // Fix Id on first call from equal() or hashCode()
    private Long getTempId() {
        if (tempId == null)
            // if we have id already, use it, else use 0
            setTempId(getId() == null ? 0 : getId());
        return tempId;
    }

    @Override
    public boolean equals(Object obj) {
        if (super.equals(obj))
            return true;
        // take proxied object into account
        if (obj == null || !Hibernate.getClass(obj).equals(this.getClass()))
            return false;
        Entity o = (Entity) obj;
        return getTempId() != 0 && o.getTempId() != 0 && getTempId().equals(o.getTempId());
    }

    // hash doesn't change in time
    @Override
    public int hashCode() {
        return getTempId() == 0 ? super.hashCode() : getTempId().hashCode();
    }
}

我个人已经在不同的项目中使用了这三种策略。我必须说，选项1在我看来是现实应用中最可行的。以我的经验来看，打破hashCode()/equals()一致性会导致许多疯狂的错误，因为你每次都会遇到这样的情况:在一个实体被添加到一个集合后，相等的结果发生了变化。

但也有更多的选择(也有它们的优点和缺点):

a) hashCode/equals基于一组不可变的、非空的、构造函数赋值的字段

(+)三个标准都有保证

(-)字段值必须可用以创建新实例

(-)如果你必须改变其中一个，处理起来会很复杂

b) hashCode/equals基于应用程序(在构造函数中)分配的主键，而不是JPA

(+)三个标准都有保证

(-)您不能利用简单可靠的ID生成策略，如DB序列

(-)如果在分布式环境(客户端/服务器)或应用服务器集群中创建新实体会很复杂

c) hashCode/equals基于实体的构造函数分配的UUID

(+)三个标准都有保证

(-)生成UUID的开销

(-)可能会有使用两次相同UUID的风险，这取决于所使用的算法(可能由DB上的唯一索引检测到)