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.

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。

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();
    }

}

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)

下面是一个简单的(经过测试的)Scala解决方案。

请注意，此解决方案不属于这3类中的任何一类 在问题中给出。 我所有的实体都是UUIDEntity的子类，所以我遵循 不要重复自己(DRY)原则。 如果需要，可以使UUID生成更精确(通过使用更多 伪随机数)。

Scala代码:

import javax.persistence._
import scala.util.Random

@Entity
@Inheritance(strategy = InheritanceType.TABLE_PER_CLASS)
abstract class UUIDEntity {
  @Id  @GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.TABLE)
  var id:java.lang.Long=null
  var uuid:java.lang.Long=Random.nextLong()
  override def equals(o:Any):Boolean= 
    o match{
      case o : UUIDEntity => o.uuid==uuid
      case _ => false
    }
  override def hashCode() = uuid.hashCode()
}