Related
This question's answers are a community effort. Edit existing answers to improve this post. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
What issues / pitfalls must be considered when overriding equals and hashCode?
The theory (for the language lawyers and the mathematically inclined):
equals() (javadoc) must define an equivalence relation (it must be reflexive, symmetric, and transitive). In addition, it must be consistent (if the objects are not modified, then it must keep returning the same value). Furthermore, o.equals(null) must always return false.
hashCode() (javadoc) must also be consistent (if the object is not modified in terms of equals(), it must keep returning the same value).
The relation between the two methods is:
Whenever a.equals(b), then a.hashCode() must be same as b.hashCode().
In practice:
If you override one, then you should override the other.
Use the same set of fields that you use to compute equals() to compute hashCode().
Use the excellent helper classes EqualsBuilder and HashCodeBuilder from the Apache Commons Lang library. An example:
public class Person {
private String name;
private int age;
// ...
#Override
public int hashCode() {
return new HashCodeBuilder(17, 31). // two randomly chosen prime numbers
// if deriving: appendSuper(super.hashCode()).
append(name).
append(age).
toHashCode();
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if (!(obj instanceof Person))
return false;
if (obj == this)
return true;
Person rhs = (Person) obj;
return new EqualsBuilder().
// if deriving: appendSuper(super.equals(obj)).
append(name, rhs.name).
append(age, rhs.age).
isEquals();
}
}
Also remember:
When using a hash-based Collection or Map such as HashSet, LinkedHashSet, HashMap, Hashtable, or WeakHashMap, make sure that the hashCode() of the key objects that you put into the collection never changes while the object is in the collection. The bulletproof way to ensure this is to make your keys immutable, which has also other benefits.
There are some issues worth noticing if you're dealing with classes that are persisted using an Object-Relationship Mapper (ORM) like Hibernate, if you didn't think this was unreasonably complicated already!
Lazy loaded objects are subclasses
If your objects are persisted using an ORM, in many cases you will be dealing with dynamic proxies to avoid loading object too early from the data store. These proxies are implemented as subclasses of your own class. This means thatthis.getClass() == o.getClass() will return false. For example:
Person saved = new Person("John Doe");
Long key = dao.save(saved);
dao.flush();
Person retrieved = dao.retrieve(key);
saved.getClass().equals(retrieved.getClass()); // Will return false if Person is loaded lazy
If you're dealing with an ORM, using o instanceof Person is the only thing that will behave correctly.
Lazy loaded objects have null-fields
ORMs usually use the getters to force loading of lazy loaded objects. This means that person.name will be null if person is lazy loaded, even if person.getName() forces loading and returns "John Doe". In my experience, this crops up more often in hashCode() and equals().
If you're dealing with an ORM, make sure to always use getters, and never field references in hashCode() and equals().
Saving an object will change its state
Persistent objects often use a id field to hold the key of the object. This field will be automatically updated when an object is first saved. Don't use an id field in hashCode(). But you can use it in equals().
A pattern I often use is
if (this.getId() == null) {
return this == other;
}
else {
return this.getId().equals(other.getId());
}
But: you cannot include getId() in hashCode(). If you do, when an object is persisted, its hashCode changes. If the object is in a HashSet, you'll "never" find it again.
In my Person example, I probably would use getName() for hashCode and getId() plus getName() (just for paranoia) for equals(). It's okay if there are some risk of "collisions" for hashCode(), but never okay for equals().
hashCode() should use the non-changing subset of properties from equals()
A clarification about the obj.getClass() != getClass().
This statement is the result of equals() being inheritance unfriendly. The JLS (Java language specification) specifies that if A.equals(B) == true then B.equals(A) must also return true. If you omit that statement inheriting classes that override equals() (and change its behavior) will break this specification.
Consider the following example of what happens when the statement is omitted:
class A {
int field1;
A(int field1) {
this.field1 = field1;
}
public boolean equals(Object other) {
return (other != null && other instanceof A && ((A) other).field1 == field1);
}
}
class B extends A {
int field2;
B(int field1, int field2) {
super(field1);
this.field2 = field2;
}
public boolean equals(Object other) {
return (other != null && other instanceof B && ((B)other).field2 == field2 && super.equals(other));
}
}
Doing new A(1).equals(new A(1)) Also, new B(1,1).equals(new B(1,1)) result give out true, as it should.
This looks all very good, but look what happens if we try to use both classes:
A a = new A(1);
B b = new B(1,1);
a.equals(b) == true;
b.equals(a) == false;
Obviously, this is wrong.
If you want to ensure the symmetric condition. a=b if b=a and the Liskov substitution principle call super.equals(other) not only in the case of B instance, but check after for A instance:
if (other instanceof B )
return (other != null && ((B)other).field2 == field2 && super.equals(other));
if (other instanceof A) return super.equals(other);
else return false;
Which will output:
a.equals(b) == true;
b.equals(a) == true;
Where, if a is not a reference of B, then it might be a be a reference of class A (because you extend it), in this case you call super.equals() too.
For an inheritance-friendly implementation, check out Tal Cohen's solution, How Do I Correctly Implement the equals() Method?
Summary:
In his book Effective Java Programming Language Guide (Addison-Wesley, 2001), Joshua Bloch claims that "There is simply no way to extend an instantiable class and add an aspect while preserving the equals contract." Tal disagrees.
His solution is to implement equals() by calling another nonsymmetric blindlyEquals() both ways. blindlyEquals() is overridden by subclasses, equals() is inherited, and never overridden.
Example:
class Point {
private int x;
private int y;
protected boolean blindlyEquals(Object o) {
if (!(o instanceof Point))
return false;
Point p = (Point)o;
return (p.x == this.x && p.y == this.y);
}
public boolean equals(Object o) {
return (this.blindlyEquals(o) && o.blindlyEquals(this));
}
}
class ColorPoint extends Point {
private Color c;
protected boolean blindlyEquals(Object o) {
if (!(o instanceof ColorPoint))
return false;
ColorPoint cp = (ColorPoint)o;
return (super.blindlyEquals(cp) &&
cp.color == this.color);
}
}
Note that equals() must work across inheritance hierarchies if the Liskov Substitution Principle is to be satisfied.
Still amazed that none recommended the guava library for this.
//Sample taken from a current working project of mine just to illustrate the idea
#Override
public int hashCode(){
return Objects.hashCode(this.getDate(), this.datePattern);
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj){
if ( ! obj instanceof DateAndPattern ) {
return false;
}
return Objects.equal(((DateAndPattern)obj).getDate(), this.getDate())
&& Objects.equal(((DateAndPattern)obj).getDate(), this.getDatePattern());
}
There are two methods in super class as java.lang.Object. We need to override them to custom object.
public boolean equals(Object obj)
public int hashCode()
Equal objects must produce the same hash code as long as they are equal, however unequal objects need not produce distinct hash codes.
public class Test
{
private int num;
private String data;
public boolean equals(Object obj)
{
if(this == obj)
return true;
if((obj == null) || (obj.getClass() != this.getClass()))
return false;
// object must be Test at this point
Test test = (Test)obj;
return num == test.num &&
(data == test.data || (data != null && data.equals(test.data)));
}
public int hashCode()
{
int hash = 7;
hash = 31 * hash + num;
hash = 31 * hash + (null == data ? 0 : data.hashCode());
return hash;
}
// other methods
}
If you want get more, please check this link as http://www.javaranch.com/journal/2002/10/equalhash.html
This is another example,
http://java67.blogspot.com/2013/04/example-of-overriding-equals-hashcode-compareTo-java-method.html
Have Fun! #.#
There are a couple of ways to do your check for class equality before checking member equality, and I think both are useful in the right circumstances.
Use the instanceof operator.
Use this.getClass().equals(that.getClass()).
I use #1 in a final equals implementation, or when implementing an interface that prescribes an algorithm for equals (like the java.util collection interfaces—the right way to check with with (obj instanceof Set) or whatever interface you're implementing). It's generally a bad choice when equals can be overridden because that breaks the symmetry property.
Option #2 allows the class to be safely extended without overriding equals or breaking symmetry.
If your class is also Comparable, the equals and compareTo methods should be consistent too. Here's a template for the equals method in a Comparable class:
final class MyClass implements Comparable<MyClass>
{
…
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj)
{
/* If compareTo and equals aren't final, we should check with getClass instead. */
if (!(obj instanceof MyClass))
return false;
return compareTo((MyClass) obj) == 0;
}
}
For equals, look into Secrets of Equals by Angelika Langer. I love it very much. She's also a great FAQ about Generics in Java. View her other articles here (scroll down to "Core Java"), where she also goes on with Part-2 and "mixed type comparison". Have fun reading them!
equals() method is used to determine the equality of two objects.
as int value of 10 is always equal to 10. But this equals() method is about equality of two objects. When we say object, it will have properties. To decide about equality those properties are considered. It is not necessary that all properties must be taken into account to determine the equality and with respect to the class definition and context it can be decided. Then the equals() method can be overridden.
we should always override hashCode() method whenever we override equals() method. If not, what will happen? If we use hashtables in our application, it will not behave as expected. As the hashCode is used in determining the equality of values stored, it will not return the right corresponding value for a key.
Default implementation given is hashCode() method in Object class uses the internal address of the object and converts it into integer and returns it.
public class Tiger {
private String color;
private String stripePattern;
private int height;
#Override
public boolean equals(Object object) {
boolean result = false;
if (object == null || object.getClass() != getClass()) {
result = false;
} else {
Tiger tiger = (Tiger) object;
if (this.color == tiger.getColor()
&& this.stripePattern == tiger.getStripePattern()) {
result = true;
}
}
return result;
}
// just omitted null checks
#Override
public int hashCode() {
int hash = 3;
hash = 7 * hash + this.color.hashCode();
hash = 7 * hash + this.stripePattern.hashCode();
return hash;
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
Tiger bengalTiger1 = new Tiger("Yellow", "Dense", 3);
Tiger bengalTiger2 = new Tiger("Yellow", "Dense", 2);
Tiger siberianTiger = new Tiger("White", "Sparse", 4);
System.out.println("bengalTiger1 and bengalTiger2: "
+ bengalTiger1.equals(bengalTiger2));
System.out.println("bengalTiger1 and siberianTiger: "
+ bengalTiger1.equals(siberianTiger));
System.out.println("bengalTiger1 hashCode: " + bengalTiger1.hashCode());
System.out.println("bengalTiger2 hashCode: " + bengalTiger2.hashCode());
System.out.println("siberianTiger hashCode: "
+ siberianTiger.hashCode());
}
public String getColor() {
return color;
}
public String getStripePattern() {
return stripePattern;
}
public Tiger(String color, String stripePattern, int height) {
this.color = color;
this.stripePattern = stripePattern;
this.height = height;
}
}
Example Code Output:
bengalTiger1 and bengalTiger2: true
bengalTiger1 and siberianTiger: false
bengalTiger1 hashCode: 1398212510
bengalTiger2 hashCode: 1398212510
siberianTiger hashCode: –1227465966
Logically we have:
a.getClass().equals(b.getClass()) && a.equals(b) ⇒ a.hashCode() == b.hashCode()
But not vice-versa!
One gotcha I have found is where two objects contain references to each other (one example being a parent/child relationship with a convenience method on the parent to get all children).
These sorts of things are fairly common when doing Hibernate mappings for example.
If you include both ends of the relationship in your hashCode or equals tests it's possible to get into a recursive loop which ends in a StackOverflowException.
The simplest solution is to not include the getChildren collection in the methods.
I made my own class with an overridden equals method which just checks, if the names (attributes in the class) are equal. Now I store some instances of that class in a HashSet so that there are no instances with the same names in the HashSet.
My Question: How is it possible to check if the HashSet contains such an object. .contains() wont work in that case, because it works with the .equals() method. I want to check if it is really the same object.
edit:
package testprogram;
import java.util.HashSet;
import java.util.Set;
public class Example {
private static final Set<Example> set = new HashSet<Example>();
private final String name;
private int example;
public Example(String name, int example) {
this.name = name;
this.example = example;
set.add(this);
}
public boolean isThisInList() {
return set.contains(this);
//will return true if this is just equal to any instance in the list
//but it should not
//it should return true if the object is really in the list
}
public boolean remove() {
return set.remove(this);
}
//Override equals and hashCode
}
Sorry, my english skills are not very well. Please feel free to ask again if you don't understand what I mean.
In your situation, the only way to tell if a particular instance of an object is contained in the HashSet, is to iterate the contents of the HashSet, and compare the object identities ( using the == operator instead of the equals() method).
Something like:
boolean isObjectInSet(Object object, Set<? extends Object> set) {
boolean result = false;
for(Object o : set) {
if(o == object) {
result = true;
break;
}
}
return result;
}
The way to check if objects are the same object is by comparing them with == to see that the object references are equal.
Kind Greetings,
Frank
You will have to override the hashCode method also.
try this..
Considering only one property 'name' of your Objects to maintain uniqueness.
#Override
public int hashCode() {
final int prime = 31;
int result = 1;
result = prime * result + (name == null ? 0 : name.hashCode());
return result;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if (this == obj) {
return true;
}
if (obj == null) {
return false;
}
if (getClass() != obj.getClass()) {
return false;
}
User other = (User) obj;
if (name == null) {
if (other.name != null) {
return false;
}
} else if (!name.equals(other.name)) {
return false;
}
return true;
}
I made my own class with an overridden equals method which just checks, if the names (attributes in the class) are equal.
This breaks the contract of .equals, and you must never do it no matter how convenient it seems.
Instead, if you want to index and look up elements by a certain attribute such as the name, use a HashMap<Name, YourType> to find them. Alternatively, use a TreeSet and pass it a Comparator that compares the name only. You can then remove the incorrect equals method.
There are then three ways if you want to find objects by reference equality:
Your objects have no inherent or useful notion of equality.
Don't implement equals. Leave it to its default. You can then use a HashSet to look for reference equality, and a HashMap or TreeSet to index them by any specific attributes.
Your objects do have a useful, universal notion of equality, but you want to find equivalent instances efficiently anyways.
This is almost never the case. However, you can use e.g. an Apache IdentityMap.
You don't care about efficiency.
Use a for loop and == every element.
HashSet contains uses the equals method to determine if the object is contained - and duplicates are not kept within the HashSet.
Assuming your equals and hashcode are only using a name field...
HashSet<MyObject> objectSet = new HashSet<MyObject>();
MyObject name1Object = new MyObject("name1");
objectSet.add(new MyObject("name1"));
objectSet.add(name1Object);
objectSet.add(new MyObject("name2"));
//HashSet now contains 2 objects, name1Object and the new name2 object
//HashSets do not hold duplicate objects (name1Object and the new object with name1 would be considered duplicates)
objectSet.contains(new MyObject("name1")) // returns true
objectSet.contains(name1Object) // returns true
objectSet.contains(new MyObject("name2")) // returns true
objectSet.contains(new MyObject("name3")) // returns false
If you wanted to check if the object in the HashSet is the exact object you are comparing you would have to pull it out and compare it directly using ==
for (MyObject o : objectSet)
{
if (o == name1Object)
{
return true;
}
}
If you do this alot for specific objects it might be easier to use a HashMap so you don't have to iterate through the list to grab a specific named Object. May be worth looking into for you because then you could do something like this:
(objectMap.get("name") == myNameObject) // with a HashMap<String, MyNameObject> where "name" is the key string.
This question's answers are a community effort. Edit existing answers to improve this post. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
What issues / pitfalls must be considered when overriding equals and hashCode?
The theory (for the language lawyers and the mathematically inclined):
equals() (javadoc) must define an equivalence relation (it must be reflexive, symmetric, and transitive). In addition, it must be consistent (if the objects are not modified, then it must keep returning the same value). Furthermore, o.equals(null) must always return false.
hashCode() (javadoc) must also be consistent (if the object is not modified in terms of equals(), it must keep returning the same value).
The relation between the two methods is:
Whenever a.equals(b), then a.hashCode() must be same as b.hashCode().
In practice:
If you override one, then you should override the other.
Use the same set of fields that you use to compute equals() to compute hashCode().
Use the excellent helper classes EqualsBuilder and HashCodeBuilder from the Apache Commons Lang library. An example:
public class Person {
private String name;
private int age;
// ...
#Override
public int hashCode() {
return new HashCodeBuilder(17, 31). // two randomly chosen prime numbers
// if deriving: appendSuper(super.hashCode()).
append(name).
append(age).
toHashCode();
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if (!(obj instanceof Person))
return false;
if (obj == this)
return true;
Person rhs = (Person) obj;
return new EqualsBuilder().
// if deriving: appendSuper(super.equals(obj)).
append(name, rhs.name).
append(age, rhs.age).
isEquals();
}
}
Also remember:
When using a hash-based Collection or Map such as HashSet, LinkedHashSet, HashMap, Hashtable, or WeakHashMap, make sure that the hashCode() of the key objects that you put into the collection never changes while the object is in the collection. The bulletproof way to ensure this is to make your keys immutable, which has also other benefits.
There are some issues worth noticing if you're dealing with classes that are persisted using an Object-Relationship Mapper (ORM) like Hibernate, if you didn't think this was unreasonably complicated already!
Lazy loaded objects are subclasses
If your objects are persisted using an ORM, in many cases you will be dealing with dynamic proxies to avoid loading object too early from the data store. These proxies are implemented as subclasses of your own class. This means thatthis.getClass() == o.getClass() will return false. For example:
Person saved = new Person("John Doe");
Long key = dao.save(saved);
dao.flush();
Person retrieved = dao.retrieve(key);
saved.getClass().equals(retrieved.getClass()); // Will return false if Person is loaded lazy
If you're dealing with an ORM, using o instanceof Person is the only thing that will behave correctly.
Lazy loaded objects have null-fields
ORMs usually use the getters to force loading of lazy loaded objects. This means that person.name will be null if person is lazy loaded, even if person.getName() forces loading and returns "John Doe". In my experience, this crops up more often in hashCode() and equals().
If you're dealing with an ORM, make sure to always use getters, and never field references in hashCode() and equals().
Saving an object will change its state
Persistent objects often use a id field to hold the key of the object. This field will be automatically updated when an object is first saved. Don't use an id field in hashCode(). But you can use it in equals().
A pattern I often use is
if (this.getId() == null) {
return this == other;
}
else {
return this.getId().equals(other.getId());
}
But: you cannot include getId() in hashCode(). If you do, when an object is persisted, its hashCode changes. If the object is in a HashSet, you'll "never" find it again.
In my Person example, I probably would use getName() for hashCode and getId() plus getName() (just for paranoia) for equals(). It's okay if there are some risk of "collisions" for hashCode(), but never okay for equals().
hashCode() should use the non-changing subset of properties from equals()
A clarification about the obj.getClass() != getClass().
This statement is the result of equals() being inheritance unfriendly. The JLS (Java language specification) specifies that if A.equals(B) == true then B.equals(A) must also return true. If you omit that statement inheriting classes that override equals() (and change its behavior) will break this specification.
Consider the following example of what happens when the statement is omitted:
class A {
int field1;
A(int field1) {
this.field1 = field1;
}
public boolean equals(Object other) {
return (other != null && other instanceof A && ((A) other).field1 == field1);
}
}
class B extends A {
int field2;
B(int field1, int field2) {
super(field1);
this.field2 = field2;
}
public boolean equals(Object other) {
return (other != null && other instanceof B && ((B)other).field2 == field2 && super.equals(other));
}
}
Doing new A(1).equals(new A(1)) Also, new B(1,1).equals(new B(1,1)) result give out true, as it should.
This looks all very good, but look what happens if we try to use both classes:
A a = new A(1);
B b = new B(1,1);
a.equals(b) == true;
b.equals(a) == false;
Obviously, this is wrong.
If you want to ensure the symmetric condition. a=b if b=a and the Liskov substitution principle call super.equals(other) not only in the case of B instance, but check after for A instance:
if (other instanceof B )
return (other != null && ((B)other).field2 == field2 && super.equals(other));
if (other instanceof A) return super.equals(other);
else return false;
Which will output:
a.equals(b) == true;
b.equals(a) == true;
Where, if a is not a reference of B, then it might be a be a reference of class A (because you extend it), in this case you call super.equals() too.
For an inheritance-friendly implementation, check out Tal Cohen's solution, How Do I Correctly Implement the equals() Method?
Summary:
In his book Effective Java Programming Language Guide (Addison-Wesley, 2001), Joshua Bloch claims that "There is simply no way to extend an instantiable class and add an aspect while preserving the equals contract." Tal disagrees.
His solution is to implement equals() by calling another nonsymmetric blindlyEquals() both ways. blindlyEquals() is overridden by subclasses, equals() is inherited, and never overridden.
Example:
class Point {
private int x;
private int y;
protected boolean blindlyEquals(Object o) {
if (!(o instanceof Point))
return false;
Point p = (Point)o;
return (p.x == this.x && p.y == this.y);
}
public boolean equals(Object o) {
return (this.blindlyEquals(o) && o.blindlyEquals(this));
}
}
class ColorPoint extends Point {
private Color c;
protected boolean blindlyEquals(Object o) {
if (!(o instanceof ColorPoint))
return false;
ColorPoint cp = (ColorPoint)o;
return (super.blindlyEquals(cp) &&
cp.color == this.color);
}
}
Note that equals() must work across inheritance hierarchies if the Liskov Substitution Principle is to be satisfied.
Still amazed that none recommended the guava library for this.
//Sample taken from a current working project of mine just to illustrate the idea
#Override
public int hashCode(){
return Objects.hashCode(this.getDate(), this.datePattern);
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj){
if ( ! obj instanceof DateAndPattern ) {
return false;
}
return Objects.equal(((DateAndPattern)obj).getDate(), this.getDate())
&& Objects.equal(((DateAndPattern)obj).getDate(), this.getDatePattern());
}
There are two methods in super class as java.lang.Object. We need to override them to custom object.
public boolean equals(Object obj)
public int hashCode()
Equal objects must produce the same hash code as long as they are equal, however unequal objects need not produce distinct hash codes.
public class Test
{
private int num;
private String data;
public boolean equals(Object obj)
{
if(this == obj)
return true;
if((obj == null) || (obj.getClass() != this.getClass()))
return false;
// object must be Test at this point
Test test = (Test)obj;
return num == test.num &&
(data == test.data || (data != null && data.equals(test.data)));
}
public int hashCode()
{
int hash = 7;
hash = 31 * hash + num;
hash = 31 * hash + (null == data ? 0 : data.hashCode());
return hash;
}
// other methods
}
If you want get more, please check this link as http://www.javaranch.com/journal/2002/10/equalhash.html
This is another example,
http://java67.blogspot.com/2013/04/example-of-overriding-equals-hashcode-compareTo-java-method.html
Have Fun! #.#
There are a couple of ways to do your check for class equality before checking member equality, and I think both are useful in the right circumstances.
Use the instanceof operator.
Use this.getClass().equals(that.getClass()).
I use #1 in a final equals implementation, or when implementing an interface that prescribes an algorithm for equals (like the java.util collection interfaces—the right way to check with with (obj instanceof Set) or whatever interface you're implementing). It's generally a bad choice when equals can be overridden because that breaks the symmetry property.
Option #2 allows the class to be safely extended without overriding equals or breaking symmetry.
If your class is also Comparable, the equals and compareTo methods should be consistent too. Here's a template for the equals method in a Comparable class:
final class MyClass implements Comparable<MyClass>
{
…
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj)
{
/* If compareTo and equals aren't final, we should check with getClass instead. */
if (!(obj instanceof MyClass))
return false;
return compareTo((MyClass) obj) == 0;
}
}
For equals, look into Secrets of Equals by Angelika Langer. I love it very much. She's also a great FAQ about Generics in Java. View her other articles here (scroll down to "Core Java"), where she also goes on with Part-2 and "mixed type comparison". Have fun reading them!
equals() method is used to determine the equality of two objects.
as int value of 10 is always equal to 10. But this equals() method is about equality of two objects. When we say object, it will have properties. To decide about equality those properties are considered. It is not necessary that all properties must be taken into account to determine the equality and with respect to the class definition and context it can be decided. Then the equals() method can be overridden.
we should always override hashCode() method whenever we override equals() method. If not, what will happen? If we use hashtables in our application, it will not behave as expected. As the hashCode is used in determining the equality of values stored, it will not return the right corresponding value for a key.
Default implementation given is hashCode() method in Object class uses the internal address of the object and converts it into integer and returns it.
public class Tiger {
private String color;
private String stripePattern;
private int height;
#Override
public boolean equals(Object object) {
boolean result = false;
if (object == null || object.getClass() != getClass()) {
result = false;
} else {
Tiger tiger = (Tiger) object;
if (this.color == tiger.getColor()
&& this.stripePattern == tiger.getStripePattern()) {
result = true;
}
}
return result;
}
// just omitted null checks
#Override
public int hashCode() {
int hash = 3;
hash = 7 * hash + this.color.hashCode();
hash = 7 * hash + this.stripePattern.hashCode();
return hash;
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
Tiger bengalTiger1 = new Tiger("Yellow", "Dense", 3);
Tiger bengalTiger2 = new Tiger("Yellow", "Dense", 2);
Tiger siberianTiger = new Tiger("White", "Sparse", 4);
System.out.println("bengalTiger1 and bengalTiger2: "
+ bengalTiger1.equals(bengalTiger2));
System.out.println("bengalTiger1 and siberianTiger: "
+ bengalTiger1.equals(siberianTiger));
System.out.println("bengalTiger1 hashCode: " + bengalTiger1.hashCode());
System.out.println("bengalTiger2 hashCode: " + bengalTiger2.hashCode());
System.out.println("siberianTiger hashCode: "
+ siberianTiger.hashCode());
}
public String getColor() {
return color;
}
public String getStripePattern() {
return stripePattern;
}
public Tiger(String color, String stripePattern, int height) {
this.color = color;
this.stripePattern = stripePattern;
this.height = height;
}
}
Example Code Output:
bengalTiger1 and bengalTiger2: true
bengalTiger1 and siberianTiger: false
bengalTiger1 hashCode: 1398212510
bengalTiger2 hashCode: 1398212510
siberianTiger hashCode: –1227465966
Logically we have:
a.getClass().equals(b.getClass()) && a.equals(b) ⇒ a.hashCode() == b.hashCode()
But not vice-versa!
One gotcha I have found is where two objects contain references to each other (one example being a parent/child relationship with a convenience method on the parent to get all children).
These sorts of things are fairly common when doing Hibernate mappings for example.
If you include both ends of the relationship in your hashCode or equals tests it's possible to get into a recursive loop which ends in a StackOverflowException.
The simplest solution is to not include the getChildren collection in the methods.
Hi I am figuring out why this code is not working the way how i wanted it to work..
What i basically want is a random object that has a char and an int generating and putting it into an arraylist. However if the generated matches the same in the arraylist it must regenerate the number again and check to see if it exists. If it does not exist it will then be added into the arraylist.
private final char letter;
private final int num;
private static Collection<RegistrationNumber> REGISTRATION_NUMBER = new ArrayList<RegistrationNumber>();
private RegistrationNumber(){
Random rand = new Random();
this.num = (1+(rand.nextInt(3)));
this.letter = Character.toUpperCase((char)(rand.nextInt(1)+'a'));
}
public static RegistrationNumber getInstance(){
boolean foo = false;
RegistrationNumber rn = null;
while(!foo){
rn = new RegistrationNumber();
if(!REGISTRATION_NUMBER.contains(rn)){
REGISTRATION_NUMBER.add(rn);
foo=true;
}
}return rn;
}
Once I look through the arraylist, there are still some repeating for example [A1,A1,A2] or [A2,A2,A3]
Many thanks!
In order for the contains(rn) method to work, RegistrationNumber must override equals. Otherwise, two different objects with identical information would not be considered the same.
When you override equals, you need to also override hashCode, because java.Object's contract requires you to override both at the same time.
Finally, you may consider using the LinkedHashSet collection for your registrations: it gives you a predictable order of iteration, while automatically preventing duplicates. Of course you still need to override equals and hashCode.
ArrayLists's contains method requires the use of an equals method overload that tells the collection how it will compare this object to existing ones (and therefore be able to find duplicates)
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if (this == obj)
return true;
if (obj == null)
return false;
if (getClass() != obj.getClass())
return false;
final RegistrationNumber other = (RegistrationNumber ) obj;
if (num != other.num && letter != other.letter)
return false;
return true;
}
The contains method, by default, uses the class' equals method. If equals has not been overridden, it will act as if you've used the "==" operator. This will test if it is the same object; not the object with the same content.
What you need to do is override the equals() method in your RegistrationNumber class, so it tests for member equality, rather than reference equality.
RegistrationNumber class must implement equals() and hashCode().
I will suggest to first, override those methods and then use a HashSet, wich will give you a Set that doesn't allow duplicates.
#Override
public int hashCode() {
final int prime = 31;
int result = 1;
result = prime * result + num;
return result;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if (this == obj)
return true;
if (obj == null)
return false;
if (getClass() != obj.getClass())
return false;
RegistrationNumber other = (RegistrationNumber) obj;
if (num != other.num)
return false;
return true;
}
This question's answers are a community effort. Edit existing answers to improve this post. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
What issues / pitfalls must be considered when overriding equals and hashCode?
The theory (for the language lawyers and the mathematically inclined):
equals() (javadoc) must define an equivalence relation (it must be reflexive, symmetric, and transitive). In addition, it must be consistent (if the objects are not modified, then it must keep returning the same value). Furthermore, o.equals(null) must always return false.
hashCode() (javadoc) must also be consistent (if the object is not modified in terms of equals(), it must keep returning the same value).
The relation between the two methods is:
Whenever a.equals(b), then a.hashCode() must be same as b.hashCode().
In practice:
If you override one, then you should override the other.
Use the same set of fields that you use to compute equals() to compute hashCode().
Use the excellent helper classes EqualsBuilder and HashCodeBuilder from the Apache Commons Lang library. An example:
public class Person {
private String name;
private int age;
// ...
#Override
public int hashCode() {
return new HashCodeBuilder(17, 31). // two randomly chosen prime numbers
// if deriving: appendSuper(super.hashCode()).
append(name).
append(age).
toHashCode();
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if (!(obj instanceof Person))
return false;
if (obj == this)
return true;
Person rhs = (Person) obj;
return new EqualsBuilder().
// if deriving: appendSuper(super.equals(obj)).
append(name, rhs.name).
append(age, rhs.age).
isEquals();
}
}
Also remember:
When using a hash-based Collection or Map such as HashSet, LinkedHashSet, HashMap, Hashtable, or WeakHashMap, make sure that the hashCode() of the key objects that you put into the collection never changes while the object is in the collection. The bulletproof way to ensure this is to make your keys immutable, which has also other benefits.
There are some issues worth noticing if you're dealing with classes that are persisted using an Object-Relationship Mapper (ORM) like Hibernate, if you didn't think this was unreasonably complicated already!
Lazy loaded objects are subclasses
If your objects are persisted using an ORM, in many cases you will be dealing with dynamic proxies to avoid loading object too early from the data store. These proxies are implemented as subclasses of your own class. This means thatthis.getClass() == o.getClass() will return false. For example:
Person saved = new Person("John Doe");
Long key = dao.save(saved);
dao.flush();
Person retrieved = dao.retrieve(key);
saved.getClass().equals(retrieved.getClass()); // Will return false if Person is loaded lazy
If you're dealing with an ORM, using o instanceof Person is the only thing that will behave correctly.
Lazy loaded objects have null-fields
ORMs usually use the getters to force loading of lazy loaded objects. This means that person.name will be null if person is lazy loaded, even if person.getName() forces loading and returns "John Doe". In my experience, this crops up more often in hashCode() and equals().
If you're dealing with an ORM, make sure to always use getters, and never field references in hashCode() and equals().
Saving an object will change its state
Persistent objects often use a id field to hold the key of the object. This field will be automatically updated when an object is first saved. Don't use an id field in hashCode(). But you can use it in equals().
A pattern I often use is
if (this.getId() == null) {
return this == other;
}
else {
return this.getId().equals(other.getId());
}
But: you cannot include getId() in hashCode(). If you do, when an object is persisted, its hashCode changes. If the object is in a HashSet, you'll "never" find it again.
In my Person example, I probably would use getName() for hashCode and getId() plus getName() (just for paranoia) for equals(). It's okay if there are some risk of "collisions" for hashCode(), but never okay for equals().
hashCode() should use the non-changing subset of properties from equals()
A clarification about the obj.getClass() != getClass().
This statement is the result of equals() being inheritance unfriendly. The JLS (Java language specification) specifies that if A.equals(B) == true then B.equals(A) must also return true. If you omit that statement inheriting classes that override equals() (and change its behavior) will break this specification.
Consider the following example of what happens when the statement is omitted:
class A {
int field1;
A(int field1) {
this.field1 = field1;
}
public boolean equals(Object other) {
return (other != null && other instanceof A && ((A) other).field1 == field1);
}
}
class B extends A {
int field2;
B(int field1, int field2) {
super(field1);
this.field2 = field2;
}
public boolean equals(Object other) {
return (other != null && other instanceof B && ((B)other).field2 == field2 && super.equals(other));
}
}
Doing new A(1).equals(new A(1)) Also, new B(1,1).equals(new B(1,1)) result give out true, as it should.
This looks all very good, but look what happens if we try to use both classes:
A a = new A(1);
B b = new B(1,1);
a.equals(b) == true;
b.equals(a) == false;
Obviously, this is wrong.
If you want to ensure the symmetric condition. a=b if b=a and the Liskov substitution principle call super.equals(other) not only in the case of B instance, but check after for A instance:
if (other instanceof B )
return (other != null && ((B)other).field2 == field2 && super.equals(other));
if (other instanceof A) return super.equals(other);
else return false;
Which will output:
a.equals(b) == true;
b.equals(a) == true;
Where, if a is not a reference of B, then it might be a be a reference of class A (because you extend it), in this case you call super.equals() too.
For an inheritance-friendly implementation, check out Tal Cohen's solution, How Do I Correctly Implement the equals() Method?
Summary:
In his book Effective Java Programming Language Guide (Addison-Wesley, 2001), Joshua Bloch claims that "There is simply no way to extend an instantiable class and add an aspect while preserving the equals contract." Tal disagrees.
His solution is to implement equals() by calling another nonsymmetric blindlyEquals() both ways. blindlyEquals() is overridden by subclasses, equals() is inherited, and never overridden.
Example:
class Point {
private int x;
private int y;
protected boolean blindlyEquals(Object o) {
if (!(o instanceof Point))
return false;
Point p = (Point)o;
return (p.x == this.x && p.y == this.y);
}
public boolean equals(Object o) {
return (this.blindlyEquals(o) && o.blindlyEquals(this));
}
}
class ColorPoint extends Point {
private Color c;
protected boolean blindlyEquals(Object o) {
if (!(o instanceof ColorPoint))
return false;
ColorPoint cp = (ColorPoint)o;
return (super.blindlyEquals(cp) &&
cp.color == this.color);
}
}
Note that equals() must work across inheritance hierarchies if the Liskov Substitution Principle is to be satisfied.
Still amazed that none recommended the guava library for this.
//Sample taken from a current working project of mine just to illustrate the idea
#Override
public int hashCode(){
return Objects.hashCode(this.getDate(), this.datePattern);
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj){
if ( ! obj instanceof DateAndPattern ) {
return false;
}
return Objects.equal(((DateAndPattern)obj).getDate(), this.getDate())
&& Objects.equal(((DateAndPattern)obj).getDate(), this.getDatePattern());
}
There are two methods in super class as java.lang.Object. We need to override them to custom object.
public boolean equals(Object obj)
public int hashCode()
Equal objects must produce the same hash code as long as they are equal, however unequal objects need not produce distinct hash codes.
public class Test
{
private int num;
private String data;
public boolean equals(Object obj)
{
if(this == obj)
return true;
if((obj == null) || (obj.getClass() != this.getClass()))
return false;
// object must be Test at this point
Test test = (Test)obj;
return num == test.num &&
(data == test.data || (data != null && data.equals(test.data)));
}
public int hashCode()
{
int hash = 7;
hash = 31 * hash + num;
hash = 31 * hash + (null == data ? 0 : data.hashCode());
return hash;
}
// other methods
}
If you want get more, please check this link as http://www.javaranch.com/journal/2002/10/equalhash.html
This is another example,
http://java67.blogspot.com/2013/04/example-of-overriding-equals-hashcode-compareTo-java-method.html
Have Fun! #.#
There are a couple of ways to do your check for class equality before checking member equality, and I think both are useful in the right circumstances.
Use the instanceof operator.
Use this.getClass().equals(that.getClass()).
I use #1 in a final equals implementation, or when implementing an interface that prescribes an algorithm for equals (like the java.util collection interfaces—the right way to check with with (obj instanceof Set) or whatever interface you're implementing). It's generally a bad choice when equals can be overridden because that breaks the symmetry property.
Option #2 allows the class to be safely extended without overriding equals or breaking symmetry.
If your class is also Comparable, the equals and compareTo methods should be consistent too. Here's a template for the equals method in a Comparable class:
final class MyClass implements Comparable<MyClass>
{
…
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj)
{
/* If compareTo and equals aren't final, we should check with getClass instead. */
if (!(obj instanceof MyClass))
return false;
return compareTo((MyClass) obj) == 0;
}
}
For equals, look into Secrets of Equals by Angelika Langer. I love it very much. She's also a great FAQ about Generics in Java. View her other articles here (scroll down to "Core Java"), where she also goes on with Part-2 and "mixed type comparison". Have fun reading them!
equals() method is used to determine the equality of two objects.
as int value of 10 is always equal to 10. But this equals() method is about equality of two objects. When we say object, it will have properties. To decide about equality those properties are considered. It is not necessary that all properties must be taken into account to determine the equality and with respect to the class definition and context it can be decided. Then the equals() method can be overridden.
we should always override hashCode() method whenever we override equals() method. If not, what will happen? If we use hashtables in our application, it will not behave as expected. As the hashCode is used in determining the equality of values stored, it will not return the right corresponding value for a key.
Default implementation given is hashCode() method in Object class uses the internal address of the object and converts it into integer and returns it.
public class Tiger {
private String color;
private String stripePattern;
private int height;
#Override
public boolean equals(Object object) {
boolean result = false;
if (object == null || object.getClass() != getClass()) {
result = false;
} else {
Tiger tiger = (Tiger) object;
if (this.color == tiger.getColor()
&& this.stripePattern == tiger.getStripePattern()) {
result = true;
}
}
return result;
}
// just omitted null checks
#Override
public int hashCode() {
int hash = 3;
hash = 7 * hash + this.color.hashCode();
hash = 7 * hash + this.stripePattern.hashCode();
return hash;
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
Tiger bengalTiger1 = new Tiger("Yellow", "Dense", 3);
Tiger bengalTiger2 = new Tiger("Yellow", "Dense", 2);
Tiger siberianTiger = new Tiger("White", "Sparse", 4);
System.out.println("bengalTiger1 and bengalTiger2: "
+ bengalTiger1.equals(bengalTiger2));
System.out.println("bengalTiger1 and siberianTiger: "
+ bengalTiger1.equals(siberianTiger));
System.out.println("bengalTiger1 hashCode: " + bengalTiger1.hashCode());
System.out.println("bengalTiger2 hashCode: " + bengalTiger2.hashCode());
System.out.println("siberianTiger hashCode: "
+ siberianTiger.hashCode());
}
public String getColor() {
return color;
}
public String getStripePattern() {
return stripePattern;
}
public Tiger(String color, String stripePattern, int height) {
this.color = color;
this.stripePattern = stripePattern;
this.height = height;
}
}
Example Code Output:
bengalTiger1 and bengalTiger2: true
bengalTiger1 and siberianTiger: false
bengalTiger1 hashCode: 1398212510
bengalTiger2 hashCode: 1398212510
siberianTiger hashCode: –1227465966
Logically we have:
a.getClass().equals(b.getClass()) && a.equals(b) ⇒ a.hashCode() == b.hashCode()
But not vice-versa!
One gotcha I have found is where two objects contain references to each other (one example being a parent/child relationship with a convenience method on the parent to get all children).
These sorts of things are fairly common when doing Hibernate mappings for example.
If you include both ends of the relationship in your hashCode or equals tests it's possible to get into a recursive loop which ends in a StackOverflowException.
The simplest solution is to not include the getChildren collection in the methods.