Develop Reference

when to implement comparable and when to implement equals in Java

In Java, when should I implement Comparable<Something> versus implementing the equals method? I understand every time I implement equals I also have to implement hash code.
EDIT
Based on answers I am getting below:
Is it safe to say that if I implement Comparable then I don't need to implement equals and hashCode? As in: whatever I can accomplish with equal is already included in compareTo? For an example, I want to be able to compare two BSTs for equality. Implementing a hashCode for that seems daunting; so would comparable be sufficient?

If you only ever need to compare them for equality (or put them in a HashMap or HashSet which is effectively the same) you only need to implement equals and hashcode.
If your objects have an implicit order and you indend to sort them (or put them in a TreeMap or TreeSet which is effectively sorting) then you must implement Comparable or provide a Comparator.

Comparable is typically used for ordering items (like sorting) and equals is used for checking if two items are equal. You could use comparable to check for equality but it doesn't have to be. From the docs, "It is strongly recommended (though not required) that natural orderings be consistent with equals"

equals (and hashCode) are used for equality tests. The Comparable interface can be used for equality checks too, but it is in practice used for sorting elements or comparing their order.
That is, equals deals only with equality (similar to == and !=), while compareTo allows you to check many different types of inequality (similar to <, <=, ==, >=, > and !=). Therefore, if your class has a partial or total ordering of some kind, you may want to implement Comparable.
The relationship between compareTo and equals is briefly mentioned in the javadocs for Comparable:
It is strongly recommended, but not strictly required that (x.compareTo(y)==0) == (x.equals(y)). Generally speaking, any class that implements the Comparable interface and violates this condition should clearly indicate this fact. The recommended language is "Note: this class has a natural ordering that is inconsistent with equals."
Comparable is used by TreeSet to compare and sort anything you insert into it, and it is used by List#sort(null) to sort a list. It will be used in other places too, but those are the first that come to mind.

You should consider when you will use the object.
If for example in TreeMap and TreeSet, then you'll need Comparable. Also any case, when you will have to sort elements(especially sorted collections), implementing Comparable is mandatory. Overriding equals and hashcode will be needed in a very large amount of cases, most of them.

As per the javadocs:
This interface imposes a total ordering on the objects of each class that implements it. This ordering is referred to as the class's natural ordering, and the class's compareTo method is referred to as its natural comparison method.
Lists (and arrays) of objects that implement this interface can be sorted automatically by Collections.sort (and Arrays.sort). Objects that implement this interface can be used as keys in a sorted map or as elements in a sorted set, without the need to specify a comparator.
The natural ordering for a class C is said to be consistent with equals if and only if e1.compareTo(e2) == 0 has the same boolean value as e1.equals(e2) for every e1 and e2 of class C. Note that null is not an instance of any class, and e.compareTo(null) should throw a NullPointerException even though e.equals(null) returns false
In short, equals() and hashcode() are for comparing equality whereas Comparable is for sorting

If you update the equals method, you should always update hashCode or you will be setting a boobytrap for yourself or others when they try to use it in a HashMap or HasSet or similar collections (very commonly used).
Comparable is required only when the interfaces you are working with require it. You can implement it for use with sorting and sorted collections but it's not actually required in most cases. An alternate approach is to pass in a Comparator to the sort or collection constructor. For example the String class has a case insensitive Comparator that is very useful and eliminates the need to create your own String class (i.e. String cannot be extended.)

Unique object identification of Java Set

In Java, a Set cannot contain two unique objects where as a List doesn't have that restriction. What is the mechanism in a Set which identifies unique objects. Most probably it might be the implementation of the equals method or hashCode method or both of the objects which are being added. Does anyone know what's the actually mechanism of identifying unique objects. Is it the equals method, hashcode method or both the methods or something else ?

It depends on the Set implementation. For HashSet and LinkedHashSet, it uses both equals and hashCode methods. For TreeSet, it uses the natural Comparator of the object or a specific provided Comparator.
Basically, the Set javadoc explains this (emphasis mine):
A collection that contains no duplicate elements. More formally, sets contain no pair of elements e1 and e2 such that e1.equals(e2), and at most one null element. As implied by its name, this interface models the mathematical set abstraction.
The Set interface places additional stipulations, beyond those inherited from the Collection interface, on the contracts of all constructors and on the contracts of the add, equals and hashCode methods.
TreeSet has another behavior since it implements SortedSet (this interface extends the Set interface). From its javadoc (emphasis mine):
A Set that further provides a total ordering on its elements. The elements are ordered using their natural ordering, or by a Comparator typically provided at sorted set creation time. The set's iterator will traverse the set in ascending element order.)
Note that the ordering maintained by a sorted set (whether or not an explicit comparator is provided) must be consistent with equals if the sorted set is to correctly implement the Set interface (See the Comparable interface or Comparator interface for a precise definition of consistent with equals.) This is so because the Set interface is defined in terms of the equals operation, but a sorted set performs all element comparisons using its compareTo (or compare) method.

HashSet Source: seems the elements are stored as keys in a HashMap (which requires unique keys) and the put method in HashMap checks the following:
if (e.hash == hash && ((k = e.key) == key || key.equals(k)))
So it compares both the hash and runs equals.
TreeSet uses a TreeMap to back its data and TreeMaps put uses a comparator.

Sorting a treemap not really working

I have a nested treemap based on the following structure, and then it ofc continues from "2":{ with the same structure..
http://pastebin.com/uKwAVz5L
And as you can see, it is already sorted by the "c13" sub item (episode number).. but when i use the treemap in my applications, it shows up like this:
http://i50.tinypic.com/15o9vno.png
They are not even remotely sorted.. but i cant see why? :O
Its the same problem when using it in my android app..
Cheers

Here is some valuable infomation on TreeMap:
Red-Black tree based implementation of the SortedMap interface. This
class guarantees that the map will be in ascending key order, sorted
according to the natural order for the key's class (see Comparable),
or by the comparator provided at creation time, depending on which
constructor is used.
Note that the ordering maintained by a sorted map (whether or not an
explicit comparator is provided) must be consistent with equals if
this sorted map is to correctly implement the Map interface. (See
Comparable or Comparator for a precise definition of consistent with
equals.) This is so because the Map interface is defined in terms of
the equals operation, but a map performs all key comparisons using its
compareTo (or compare) method, so two keys that are deemed equal by
this method are, from the standpoint of the sorted map, equal. The
behavior of a sorted map is well-defined even if its ordering is
inconsistent with equals; it just fails to obey the general contract
of the Map interface.
Have you correctly implemented the methods mentioned above?
There are also different implementations of the Collections framework (An overview is here). If TreeMap doesn't provide the functionality you want you can implement another one and modify it to your needs.

Try using a Comparator:
TreeMap map = new TreeMap<Obj1, Obj2>(new ObjComparator());
private class ObjComparator() implements Comparator<Obj1> {
public int compareTo(Obj1 o1, Obj1 o2) {
return o1.compareTo(o2); // do your logic here
}
}

Why is the comparator used instead of the equals() in Collections?

There is a java bean Car that might contains two values: model and price.
Now suppose I override equals() and hashcode() checking only for model in that way:
public boolean equals(Object o) {
return this.model.equals(o.model);
}
public int hashCode() {
return model.hashCode();
}
This permit me to check if an arraylist already contain an item Car of the same model (and doesn't matter the price), in that way:
List<Car> car = new ArrayList<Car>();
car.add(new Car("carA",100f));
car.add(new Car("carB",101f));
car.add(new Car("carC",110f));
System.out.println(a.contains(new Car("carB",111f)));
It returns TRUE. That's fine, because the car already exist!
But now I decide that the ArrayList is not good, because I want to maintain the items ordered, so I substitute it with a TreeSet in this way:
Set<Car> car = new TreeSet<Car>(new Comparator<Car>() {
#Override
public int compare(Car car1, Car car2) {
int compPrice = - Float.compare(car1.getPrice(), car2.getPrice());
if (compPrice > 0 || compPrice < 0)
return compPrice;
else
return car1.getModel().compareTo(car2.getModel());
}});
car.add(new Car("carA",100f));
car.add(new Car("carB",101f));
car.add(new Car("carC",110f));
System.out.println(a.contains(new Car("carB",111f)));
But now there is a problem, it return FALSE... why?
It seems that when I invoke contains() using an arrayList the method equals() is invoked.
But it seems that when I invoke contains() using a TreeSet with a comparator, the comparator is used instead.
Why does that happen?

TreeSet forms a binary tree keeping elements according to natural (or not) orders, so in order to search quickly one specific element is the collection, TreeSet uses Comparable or Comparator instead of equals().
As TreeSet JavaDoc precises:
Note that the ordering maintained by a set (whether or not an explicit
comparator is provided) must be consistent with equals if it is to
correctly implement the Set interface. (See Comparable or Comparator
for a precise definition of consistent with equals.) This is so
because the Set interface is defined in terms of the equals operation,
but a TreeSet instance performs all element comparisons using its
compareTo (or compare) method, so two elements that are deemed equal
by this method are, from the standpoint of the set, equal. The
behavior of a set is well-defined even if its ordering is inconsistent
with equals; it just fails to obey the general contract of the Set
interface.
We can find a similarity with the HashCode/Equals contract:
If equals() returns true, hashcode() has to return true too in order to be found during search.
Likewise with TreeSet:
If contains() (using Comparator or Comparable) returns true, equals() has to return true too in order to be consistent with equals().
THEREFORE: Fields used within TreeSet.equals() method have to be exactly the same (no more, no less) than within your Comparator implementation.

A TreeSet is implicitly sorted, and it uses a Comparator for this sorting. The equals() method can only tell you if two objects are the same or different, not how they should be ordered for sorting. Only a Comparator can do that.
More to the point, a TreeSet also uses comparisons for searching. This is sort of the whole point of tree-based map/set. When the contains() method is called, a binary search is performed and the target is either found or not found, based on how the comparator is defined. The comparator defines not only logical order but also logical identity. If you are relying on logical identity defined by an inconsistent equals() implementation, then confusion will probably ensue.

The reason for the different behaviour is, that you consider the price member in the compare method, but ignore it in equals.
new Car("carB",101f) // what you add to the list
new Car("carB",111f) // what you are looking for
Both instances are "equals" (sorry...) since their model members are equal (and the implementation stops after that test). They "compare" as different, though, because that implementation also checks the price member.

TreeSet Comperator

I used a TreeSet with a self written Comparator. Now when I'm adding elements to the TreeSet and the Comparator's compare methods returns 0, it seems like the TreeSet contains only one of the Object with equal ranking.
I didn't see that this behaviour is documented in the javadocs. Maybe I miss something. Can you confirm this behaviour?
I edited the Comparator. Now it never returns 0 and the TreeSet contains all the Objects with equal ranking.
Is that the way it has to be, if I want to have multiple Objects with equal ranking?

That's the way it has to be, as a set is defined as including equal objects only once.
When your Comparator returns 0, two objects are considered equal, therefore only one (probably the first) of all equal objects is included in the set.

Yes, this is documented in the JavaDoc for TreeSet:
Note that the ordering maintained by a
set (whether or not an explicit
comparator is provided) must be
consistent with equals if it is to
correctly implement the Set interface.
(See Comparable or Comparator for a
precise definition of consistent with
equals.) This is so because the Set
interface is defined in terms of the
equals operation, but a TreeSet
instance performs all element
comparisons using its compareTo (or
compare) method, so two elements that
are deemed equal by this method are,
from the standpoint of the set, equal.
The behavior of a set is well-defined
even if its ordering is inconsistent
with equals; it just fails to obey the
general contract of the Set interface. (Emphasis mine)

If you want a sorted collection that can hold multiple objects which are equal to each other, then the TreeMultiset from Google Collections would probably do the trick.