That definitely seems acceptable. Any reason not to make the default implementation return toByteString().hashCode() and get the best of both worlds? It's a little more expensive probably, but Object.hashCode() is already deceptively expensive to begin with.
I personally switched my particular problem to use Strings as keys, since that works for the use case here and is easier for corresponding command-line tools, I just generally see a consistent hashcode as a good idea if supportable. On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Jason Hsueh <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, hashing the serialization as Pherl/Kenton suggested gives you that, > and seems cleaner and more direct than making hashCode() of the in-memory > object assume that you are doing something across JVMs. > (Also, unknown fields are pretty common when you may have a jungle of > binaries, which is true here.) > > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Jay Booth <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Right, I forgot that the Descriptor object is statically initialized >> so it'll be consistent within the JVM. >> >> I still think that in the context of serializable objects, (i.e. >> objects intended to be transported between JVMs in some way, shape or >> form) a consistent hashCode would be useful for a lot of cases (mine >> included). If it can't be consistent in the presence of unknown >> fields, perhaps a well-documented caution to that (relatively >> uncommon?) case would be more useful than completely punting on all >> cases. >> >> On May 18, 3:08 pm, Ron Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote: >> > the corner-stone of Hash* containers is: >> > (A.equals(B)) => (A.hashCode() == B.hashCode()) for all A, B. >> > >> > tho it's not explicitly stated it would seem to be implied that is >> > within a >> > single JVM. >> > not sure if the code in question maintains that rule within a JVM (if >> > not that's >> > a big deal). >> > if so that would seem sufficient for all but the most distributed of >> > Hash* >> > containers, such as where a client which is remote from the storage >> > (i.e, in >> > another JVM) determines the bucket (based on hashCode()) to find that >> > the >> > element in question has been placed into another bucket because the >> > hashCode() >> > within the containing JVM has evaluated to another value. that's a >> > pretty >> > far-fetched, but not unimaginable, situation. >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > From: Jason Hsueh <[email protected]> >> > To: Jay Booth <[email protected]> >> > Cc: Protocol Buffers <[email protected]> >> > Sent: Wed, May 18, 2011 12:00:19 PM >> > Subject: Re: [protobuf] Re: Generated hashcode() returns different >> > values across >> > JVM instances? >> > >> > Jumping in late to the thread, and I'm not really a Java person, so I >> > may be >> > misunderstanding something here. But as far as I can tell, you are >> > asking for >> > hashCode() to be a 'consistent' hash across processes. hashCode() as >> > implemented >> > is still useful within a single JVM, allowing you to use protobufs in >> > HashMaps >> > based on content rather than object identity. That was the intended use >> > case. >> > >> > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Jay Booth <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Well, that's your prerogative, I guess, but why even implement >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >hashcode at all then? Just inherit from object and you're getting >> > >effectively the same behavior. Is that what you're intending? >> > >> > >On May 16, 10:03 am, Pherl Liu <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> We discussed internally and decided not to make the hashCode() >> > >> return deterministic result. If you need consistent hashcode in >> > >> different >> > >> runs, use toByteString().hashCode(). >> > >> > >> Quoted from Kenton: >> > >> > >> Hashing the content of the descriptor would actually be incorrect, >> > >> because >> > >> two descriptors with exactly the same content are still considered >> > >> different >> > >> types. Descriptors are compared by identity, hence they are hashed >> > >> by >> > >> pointer. >> > >> > >> Removing the descriptor from the calculation would indeed make >> > >> hashCode() >> > >> consistent between two runs of the same binary, and probably >> > >> insignificant >> > >> runtime cost. Of course, once you do that, you will never be able to >> > >> introduce non-determinism again because people will depend on it. >> > >> > >> But there's a much bigger risk. People may actually start depending >> > >> on >> > >> hashCode() returning consistent results between two different >> > >> versions of >> > >> the binary, or two completely separate binaries that compile in the >> > >> same >> > >> protocol, or -- most dangerously -- two different versions of the >> > >> same >> > >> protocol (e.g. with fields added or removed). I think it would be >> > >> very >> > >> difficult and limiting to make these guarantees, so I would be >> > >> extremely >> > >> cautious about this. >> > >> > >> Certainly, there is no implementation of hashCode() that would be any >> > >> safer >> > >> than .toByteString().hashCode(). So, I'd advise steering people to >> > >> the >> > >> latter. Note that if unknown fields are present, the results may >> > >> still be >> > >> inconsistent. However, there is no reasonable way to implement a >> > >> hashCode() >> > >> that is consistent in the presence of unknown fields. >> > >> > >> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Ben Wright <[email protected]> >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > I think we wrote those replies at the same time : ) >> > >> > >> > You're right, at the cost of some additional hash collisions, the >> > >> > simplest solution is to simply not include the type / descriptor in >> > >> > the hash calculation at all. >> > >> > >> > The best / least-collision solutions with good performance would be >> > >> > what I wrote in my previous post, but that requires that someone >> > >> > (presumably a current committer) with sufficient knowledge of the >> > >> > Descriptor types to have enough time to update the compiler and >> > >> > java >> > >> > libraries accordingly. >> > >> > >> > Any input from a committer for this issue? Seems the simple >> > >> > solution >> > >> > would take less than an hour to push into the stream and could make >> > >> > it >> > >> > into the next release. >> > >> > >> > On May 11, 5:25 pm, Ben Wright <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > Alternatively... instead of putting the onus on the compiler, the >> > >> > > hashcode could be computed by the JVM at initialization time for >> > >> > > the >> > >> > > Descriptor instance, (which would also help performance of >> > >> > > dynamically >> > >> > > parsed Descriptor instance hashcode calls). >> > >> > >> > > i.e. >> > >> > >> > > private final int computedHashcode; >> > >> > >> > > public Descriptor() { >> > >> > > //initialization >> > >> > >> > > computedHashcode = do_compute_hashCode(); >> > >> > >> > > } >> > >> > >> > > public int hashCode() { >> > >> > > return computedHashcode; >> > >> > >> > > } >> > >> > >> > > punlic int do_compute_hashCode(){ >> > >> > > return // compute hashcode >> > >> > >> > > } >> > >> > >> > > This is all talking towards optimum performance implementation... >> > >> > > the >> > >> > > real problem is the need for a hashCode implementation for >> > >> > > Descriptor >> > >> > > based on the actual Descriptor's content... >> > >> > >> > > On May 11, 4:54 pm, Ben Wright <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > > > Jay: >> > >> > >> > > > Using the class name to generate the hashcode is logically >> > >> > > > incorrect >> > >> > > > because the class name can be derived by the options >> > >> > > > java_package_ >> > >> > > > name and java_outer_classname. >> > >> > >> > > > Additionally (although less likely to matter), separate >> > >> > > > protocol >> > >> > > > buffer files can define an identical class names with different >> > >> > > > protocol buffers. >> > >> > >> > > > Lastly, and most importantly... >> > >> > >> > > > If the same Message is being used with generated code and with >> > >> > > > dynamic >> > >> > > > code, the hash code for the descriptor would still be identical >> > >> > > > if >> > >> > > > generated from the descriptor instance, whereas the dynamic >> > >> > > > usage does >> > >> > > > not have a classname from which to derive a hashcode. While in >> > >> > > > your >> > >> > > > case this should not matter, it does matter for other users of >> > >> > > > protobuf. The hashcode function would be better served by >> > >> > > > being >> > >> > > > implemented correctly from state data for the descriptor. >> > >> > > > Additionally, in generated code it seems that this hashcode >> > >> > > > could be >> > >> > > > pre-computed by the compiler and Descriptor.hashcode() could >> > >> > > > return a >> > >> > > > constant integer - which would be much more efficient than any >> > >> > > > other >> > >> > > > method. >> > >> > >> > > > On May 11, 3:02 pm, Jay Booth <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > > > > It can be legitimate, especially in the case of >> > >> > > > > Object.hashCode(), >> > >> > but >> > >> > > > > it's supposed to be in sync with equals() by contract. As it >> > >> > > > > stands, >> > >> > > > > two objects which are equal() will produce different hashes, >> > >> > > > > or the >> > >> > > > > same logical object will produce different hashes across >> > >> > > > > JVMs. That >> > >> > > > > breaks the contract.. if the equals() method simply did >> > >> > > > > return >> > >> > (other >> > >> > > > > == this), then it'd be fine, albeit a little useless. >> > >> > >> > > > > I created an issue and posted a 1-liner patch that would >> > >> > > > > eliminate >> > >> > the >> > >> > > > > problem by using getClass().getName().hashCode() to >> > >> > > > > incorporate type >> > >> > > > > information into the hashCode without depending on a >> > >> > > > > Descriptor >> > >> > > > > object's memory address. >> > >> > >> > > > > On May 11, 12:01 am, Dmitriy Ryaboy <[email protected]> >> > >> > > > > wrote: >> > >> > >> > > > > > Hi Jay, >> > >> > >> > > > > > I encountered that before. Unfortunately this is a >> > >> > > > > > legitimate thing >> > >> > to >> > >> > > > > > do, as documented in Object.hashCode() >> > >> > >> > > > > > I have a write-up of the problem and how we wound up >> > >> > > > > > solving it >> > >> > (not >> > >> > > > > > elegant.. suggestions welcome) here: >> > >> >> > >> > >http://squarecog.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/hadoop-requires-stable-hash... >> > >> > >> > > > > > D >> > >> > >> > > > > > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Jay Booth >> > >> > > > > > <[email protected]> >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > > > > > > I'm testing an on-disk hashtable with Protobufs and >> > >> > > > > > > noticed that >> > >> > with >> > >> > > > > > > the java generated hashcode function, it seems to return >> > >> > > > > > > a >> > >> > different >> > >> > > > > > > hashcode across JVM invocations for the same logically >> > >> > > > > > > equivalent >> > >> > > > > > > object (tested with a single string protobuf, same string >> > >> > > > > > > for >> > >> > both >> > >> > > > > > > instances). >> > >> > >> > > > > > > Is this known behavior? Bit busy right now backporting >> > >> > > > > > > this to >> > >> > work >> > >> > > > > > > with String keys instead but I could provide a bit of >> > >> > > > > > > command >> > >> > line >> > >> > > > > > > code that demonstrates the issue when I get a chance. >> > >> > >> > > > > > > Glancing at the generated hashcode() function, it looks >> > >> > > > > > > like the >> > >> > > > > > > difference comes from etiher >> > >> > > > > > > getDescriptorForType().hashCode() or >> > >> > > > > > > getUnknownFields().hashCode(), both of which are >> > >> > > > > > > incorporated. >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- >> > >> > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to >> > >> > > > > > > the >> > >> > Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. >> > >> > > > > > > To post to this group, send email to >> > >> > > > > > > [email protected]. >> > >> > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> > >> > [email protected]. >> > >> > > > > > > For more options, visit this group athttp:// >> > >> > groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en. >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> > >> > Groups >> > >> > "Protocol Buffers" group. >> > >> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> > >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> > >> > [email protected]. >> > >> > For more options, visit this group at >> > >> >http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en. >> > >> > >-- >> > >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> > > Groups >> > >"Protocol Buffers" group. >> > >To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> > >To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> > >[email protected]. >> > >For more options, visit this group at >> > >http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en. >> > >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> > Groups >> > "Protocol Buffers" group. >> > To post to this group, send email to ... >> > >> > read more » >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Protocol Buffers" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
