I have a simple base class, which is later extended by many separate classes, which potentially introduce new fields, but not necessarily. I defined an equals method in the base class, but also overriden that for a few subclasses. Is it OK to mix definitions in base/subclasses? In my case it was to avoid code duplication checking the same fields.
In simple words, == checks if both objects point to the same memory location whereas . equals() evaluates to the comparison of values in the objects.
The equals method is defined in Object and since all classes inherit from it, all have that method. The implementation in Object checks identity (note that identical variables are equal as well), but many classes override it with something more suitable.
The equals method that is inherited from the Object class only returns true if the two objects references refer to the same object.
The == operator can't compare conflicting objects, so at that time the compiler surrenders the compile-time error. The equals() method can compare conflicting objects utilizing the equals() method and returns “false”.
Take a look at "Implementing equals() To Allow Mixed-Type Comparison" from Angelika Langer .
Here is a brief explanation of some problems and a possible solution:
The equals contract says (amongst others):
It is symmetric: for any non-null reference values x and y, x.equals(y) should return true if and only if y.equals(x) returns true.
That means you might get problems if your sub class is introducing new fields and you're comparing an object of the base class (or another sub class that doesn't override equals) to an object of this sub class.
Do NOT do the following:
class BaseClass { private int field1 = 0; @Override public boolean equals(Object obj) { if (obj instanceof BaseClass) { return field1 == ((BaseClass) obj).field1; } return false; } } class BadSubClass extends BaseClass { private int field2 = 0; @Override public boolean equals(Object obj) { if (obj instanceof BadSubClass) { return super.equals(obj) && field2 == ((BadSubClass) obj).field2; } return false; } }
because you get
BaseClass baseClass = new BaseClass(); BadSubClass subClass = new BadSubClass(); System.out.println(baseClass.equals(subClass)); // prints 'true' System.out.println(subClass.equals(baseClass)); // prints 'false'
A possible solution:
Replace the instanceof
-check with a class comparison:
obj != null && obj.getClass() == getClass()
With this solution an object of BaseClass
will never be equal to an object of any subclass.
If you create another SubClass
without an @Override
of the equals
method, two SubClass
-objects can be equal to each other (if the BaseClass.equals
check decides so) out of the box, but a SubClass
-object will never be equal to a BaseClass
-object.
A good implementation could be as follows:
class BaseClass { private int field1 = 0; @Override public boolean equals(Object obj) { if (obj != null && obj.getClass() == getClass()) { return field1 == ((BaseClass) obj).field1; } return false; } } class GoodSubClass extends BaseClass { private int field2 = 0; @Override public boolean equals(Object obj) { if (obj instanceof GoodSubClass) { return super.equals(obj) && field2 == ((GoodSubClass) obj).field2; } return false; } }
Please refer to the article mentioned above for more advanced problems and their solutions.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With