On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 18:13:38 GMT, Pavel Rappo <pra...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Thanks for noticing this difference!
>>
>> Yes, the initial value would've been exponentiated (^ or ** in your
>> notation). However, I note that the original code computed this:
>>
>> if nameValue.length > 0
>>
>> (37^nameValue.length) * oid.hashCode() + 37 + Arrays.hashCode(nameValue)
>>
>> otherwise
>>
>> 37 + oid.hashCode()
>>
>> Well, it would've computed that, had the multiplier constant been 37 in
>> Arrays.hashCode, which it is not; it's 31.
>>
>> Since we cannot achieve absolute fidelity with the old code, I suggest we do
>> this instead, what do you think?
>>
>> public int hashCode() {
>> if (myhash == -1) {
>> myhash = Arrays.deepHashCode(new Object[]{oid, nameValue});
>> }
>> return myhash;
>
> Correction. If the multiplier were 31, then it would've been this:
>
> return ( 30 + oid.hashCode() ) * 31**nameValue.length +
> Arrays.hashCode(nameValue);
> ^ ^
>
> @djelinski, do you think we should use this instead?
>
> return Arrays.deepHashCode(new Object[]{oid, nameValue});
I think `oid.hashCode() + Arrays.hashCode(nameValue)` would have been good
enough, but deepHashCode is also acceptable.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14738#discussion_r1265763292
