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.

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?

我使用类EntityBase和继承到我所有的JPA实体，这对我来说非常好。

/**
 * @author marcos.oliveira
 */
@MappedSuperclass
public abstract class EntityBase<TId extends Serializable> implements Serializable{
    /**
     *
     */
    private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;

    @Id
    @Column(name = "id", unique = true, nullable = false)
    @GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.IDENTITY)
    protected TId id;



    public TId getId() {
        return this.id;
    }

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

    @Override
    public int hashCode() {
        return (super.hashCode() * 907) + Objects.hashCode(getId());//this.getId().hashCode();
    }

    @Override
    public String toString() {
        return super.toString() + " [Id=" + id + "]";
    }

    @Override
    public boolean equals(Object obj) {
        if (this == obj) {
            return true;
        }
        if (obj == null || getClass() != obj.getClass()) {
            return false;
        }
        EntityBase entity = (EntityBase) obj;
        if (entity.id == null || id == null) {
            return false;
        }
        return Objects.equals(id, entity.id);
    }
}

参考:https://thorben-janssen.com/ultimate-guide-to-implementing-equals-and-hashcode-with-hibernate/

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。

虽然使用业务键(选项3)是最常推荐的方法(Hibernate社区wiki，“Java Persistence with Hibernate”第398页)，而且这是我们最常用的方法，但Hibernate有一个错误会破坏急于获取的集:HHH-3799。在这种情况下，Hibernate可以在字段初始化之前将一个实体添加到集合中。我不确定为什么这个错误没有得到更多的关注，因为它确实使推荐的业务键方法出现了问题。

我认为问题的核心是equals和hashCode应该基于不可变状态(参考Odersky等人)，而具有Hibernate管理的主键的Hibernate实体没有这样的不可变状态。当一个瞬态对象变成持久对象时，Hibernate会修改主键。当Hibernate在初始化过程中为对象补水时，业务键也会被Hibernate修改。

这就只剩下选项1了，基于对象身份继承java.lang.Object实现，或者使用James Brundege在“不要让Hibernate窃取你的身份”(Stijn Geukens的回答已经引用了)和Lance Arlaus在“对象生成:Hibernate集成的更好方法”中建议的应用程序管理的主键。

The biggest problem with option 1 is that detached instances can't be compared with persistent instances using .equals(). But that's OK; the contract of equals and hashCode leaves it up to the developer to decide what equality means for each class. So just let equals and hashCode inherit from Object. If you need to compare a detached instance to a persistent instance, you can create a new method explicitly for that purpose, perhaps boolean sameEntity or boolean dbEquivalent or boolean businessEquals.