JPA hashCode（）/ equals（）两难

本文翻译自：The JPA hashCode() / equals() dilemma

There have been some discussions here about JPA entities and which hashCode() / equals() implementation should be used for JPA entity classes. 这里有一些关于JPA实体的讨论 ，以及哪些hashCode() / equals()实现应该用于JPA实体类。 Most (if not all) of them depend on Hibernate, but I'd like to discuss them JPA-implementation-neutrally (I am using EclipseLink, by the way). 大多数（如果不是全部）它们依赖于Hibernate，但我想讨论它们JPA实现中性（顺便说一下，我使用的是EclipseLink）。

All possible implementations are having their own advantages and disadvantages regarding: 所有可能的实现都有各自的优点和缺点 ：

• hashCode() / equals() contract conformity (immutability) for List / Set operations hashCode() / equals() ）用于List / Set操作的合同一致性 （immutability）
• Whether identical objects (eg from different sessions, dynamic proxies from lazily-loaded data structures) can be detected 是否可以检测到相同的对象（例如来自不同会话，来自延迟加载的数据结构的动态代理）
• Whether entities behave correctly in detached (or non-persisted) state 实体是否在分离（或非持久）状态下正常运行
  

As far I can see, there are three options : 据我所知，有三种选择 ：

1. Do not override them; 不要覆盖它们; rely on Object.equals() and Object.hashCode() 依赖于Object.equals()和Object.hashCode()
   • hashCode() / equals() work hashCode() / equals()工作
   • cannot identify identical objects, problems with dynamic proxies 无法识别相同的对象，动态代理的问题
   • no problems with detached entities 分离实体没有问题
2. Override them, based on the primary key 根据主键覆盖它们
   • hashCode() / equals() are broken hashCode() / equals()被破坏了
   • correct identity (for all managed entities) 正确的身份（适用于所有管理实体）
   • problems with detached entities 分离实体的问题
3. Override them, based on the Business-Id (non-primary key fields; what about foreign keys?) 根据Business-Id （非主键字段;外键怎么样？）覆盖它们。
   • hashCode() /