Ah, but will two DOs of the same class with null OIDs have the same hash
code? If so, that would be bad, too.
My basic desire is to get a unique value (an int is fine, or a short
string, etc) for every DO that does not include entity/key information
and the value must be reproducible. If I could just take the address of
the DO ... Hahaha. So, I'm open to thoughts on this ...
Of course, you could argue I'm just being a security nazi, too. You
should see people's (seasoned web developers) eyes bugger out when I
show them how I can edit their "secure" HTML in OmniWeb, change all the
hidden form values, and post it back to their application. They thought
that was impossible. (Of course, you can do the same with curl, too,
but it is more difficult.) Never trust the client-side data.
Thanks,
/dev/mrg
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Menard [mailto:kmenar..ervprise.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 12:11 PM
To: cayenne-de..ncubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Add getHashCode() to CayenneDataObject?
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:58:07 -0400, Gentry, Michael (Contractor)
<michael_gentr..anniemae.com> wrote:
> Would it make sense to add:
>
> public int getHashCode()
> {
> return getObjectId().hashCode();
> }
> Any thoughts on this? Or is there another way to get a unique value
for
> an object that doesn't expose the entity/keys? If only Java let me
get
> the pointer (I miss &).
My only concern is expanding the code to work with DOs that aren't yet
registered with a DC. In that case, the OID is null, so the above code
breaks. In order to not break the equals() contract though (I'm
assuming
you want getHashCode() to work similarly to hashCode()), you just have
to
be careful how you deal with null values. In particular, two DOs
created
from different classes, both with null OIDs probably shouldn't have the
same hash code.
-- Kevin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Jun 21 2006 - 12:30:59 EDT