If I implement java.lang.Comparable for a class, do I still have to override the equals() method? Or will the Comparable work for equals as well?
If the answer is no, then what if some discrepancy arises? Let's say the way I term two objects as equal within the equals() method is different from the way I term two objects of the same class as equal within the compareTo() of the Comparable.
Moreover, if I implement Comparable, do I also have to override equals()?
While it is recommended (and pretty sensible) that having a.compareTo(b) == 0 imply that a.equals(b) (and visa versa), it is not required. Comparable is intended to be used when performing an ordering on a series of objects, whereas equals() just tests for straight equality.
This link has some good information on implementing compareTo properly.
From Javadoc of java.lang.Comparable:
It is strongly recommended (though not required) that natural orderings be consistent with equals.
While it is recommended, it is not required that .equals() and .compareTo() have the same behaviour.
Just look at the BigDecimal API: http://download.oracle.com/javase/1,5.0/docs/api/java/math/BigDecimal.html#equals(java.lang.Object)
Let's say the way I term two objects as equal within the equals() method is different from the way I term two objects of the same class as equal within the toCompare() of the Comparable?
If you do this, and you put those objects into a sorted set, the set will misbehave. From the docs on SortedSet:
Note that the ordering maintained by a sorted set (whether or not an explicit comparator is provided) must be consistent with equals if the sorted set is to correctly implement the Set interface.
For example, a TreeSet may (erroneously) contain two objects where
a.compareTo(b) != 0
even though
a.equals(b) == true
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6970879/java-lang-comparable-and-equals