这里有一些关于JPA实体的讨论,以及应该为JPA实体类使用哪些hashCode()/equals()实现。它们中的大多数(如果不是全部)依赖于Hibernate,但是我想中立地讨论它们的jpa实现(顺便说一下,我使用的是EclipseLink)。
所有可能的实现都有其自身的优点和缺点:
hashCode()/equals()契约一致性(不可变性)用于列表/集操作
是否可以检测到相同的对象(例如来自不同会话的对象,来自惰性加载数据结构的动态代理)
实体在分离(或非持久化)状态下是否正确运行
在我看来,有三种选择:
Do not override them; rely on Object.equals() and Object.hashCode()
hashCode()/equals() work
cannot identify identical objects, problems with dynamic proxies
no problems with detached entities
Override them, based on the primary key
hashCode()/equals() are broken
correct identity (for all managed entities)
problems with detached entities
Override them, based on the Business-Id (non-primary key fields; what about foreign keys?)
hashCode()/equals() are broken
correct identity (for all managed entities)
no problems with detached entities
我的问题是:
我是否错过了一个选择和/或赞成/反对的观点?
你选择了什么,为什么?
更新1:
通过“hashCode()/equals()是坏的”,我的意思是连续的hashCode()调用可能返回不同的值,这(当正确实现时)在对象API文档的意义上不是坏的,但是当试图从Map、Set或其他基于哈希的集合中检索更改的实体时,会导致问题。因此,JPA实现(至少是EclipseLink)在某些情况下不能正确工作。
更新2:
谢谢你的回答——大部分问题都很有质量。
不幸的是,我仍然不确定哪种方法最适合实际应用程序,或者如何确定最适合我的应用程序的方法。所以,我将保持这个问题的开放性,希望有更多的讨论和/或意见。
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。
我同意Andrew的回答。我们在应用程序中做同样的事情,但不是将uuid存储为VARCHAR/CHAR,而是将其分割为两个长值。请参阅UUID.getLeastSignificantBits()和UUID.getMostSignificantBits()。
还有一件事需要考虑,对UUID. randomuuid()的调用非常慢,因此您可能希望只在需要时才惰性地生成UUID,例如在持久化期间或调用equals()/hashCode()期间
@MappedSuperclass
public abstract class AbstractJpaEntity extends AbstractMutable implements Identifiable, Modifiable {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
@Version
@Column(name = "version", nullable = false)
private int version = 0;
@Column(name = "uuid_least_sig_bits")
private long uuidLeastSigBits = 0;
@Column(name = "uuid_most_sig_bits")
private long uuidMostSigBits = 0;
private transient int hashCode = 0;
public AbstractJpaEntity() {
//
}
public abstract Integer getId();
public abstract void setId(final Integer id);
public boolean isPersisted() {
return getId() != null;
}
public int getVersion() {
return version;
}
//calling UUID.randomUUID() is pretty expensive,
//so this is to lazily initialize uuid bits.
private void initUUID() {
final UUID uuid = UUID.randomUUID();
uuidLeastSigBits = uuid.getLeastSignificantBits();
uuidMostSigBits = uuid.getMostSignificantBits();
}
public long getUuidLeastSigBits() {
//its safe to assume uuidMostSigBits of a valid UUID is never zero
if (uuidMostSigBits == 0) {
initUUID();
}
return uuidLeastSigBits;
}
public long getUuidMostSigBits() {
//its safe to assume uuidMostSigBits of a valid UUID is never zero
if (uuidMostSigBits == 0) {
initUUID();
}
return uuidMostSigBits;
}
public UUID getUuid() {
return new UUID(getUuidMostSigBits(), getUuidLeastSigBits());
}
@Override
public int hashCode() {
if (hashCode == 0) {
hashCode = (int) (getUuidMostSigBits() >> 32 ^ getUuidMostSigBits() ^ getUuidLeastSigBits() >> 32 ^ getUuidLeastSigBits());
}
return hashCode;
}
@Override
public boolean equals(final Object obj) {
if (obj == null) {
return false;
}
if (!(obj instanceof AbstractJpaEntity)) {
return false;
}
//UUID guarantees a pretty good uniqueness factor across distributed systems, so we can safely
//dismiss getClass().equals(obj.getClass()) here since the chance of two different objects (even
//if they have different types) having the same UUID is astronomical
final AbstractJpaEntity entity = (AbstractJpaEntity) obj;
return getUuidMostSigBits() == entity.getUuidMostSigBits() && getUuidLeastSigBits() == entity.getUuidLeastSigBits();
}
@PrePersist
public void prePersist() {
// make sure the uuid is set before persisting
getUuidLeastSigBits();
}
}