因此，我想使生活更轻松的是创建一个注释，以标记我有兴趣比较的字段。没有，我最终不得不坚持命名对话，就像仅使用以’get’开头的方法一样。我发现这种方法有很多极端的情况。

注释。

@Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
@Target(ElementType.FIELD)
public @interface AuditCompare {

    public String name() default "";
    public CompareType compareBy() default CompareType.string;

    enum CompareType {
        string, count
    }

}

像这样被使用

@Entity
@Audited
public class Guideline {

    .....

    @AuditCompare
    private String name;

    @AuditCompare
    private String owner;

    @OneToMany(cascade = CascadeType.ALL, orphanRemoval=true, mappedBy="guideline")
    private Set<GuidelineCheckListItem> checkListItems = new HashSet<GuidelineCheckListItem>();

    .........

}

由于envers将Set更改和Set的对象都审核为两个不同的事件，因此我不想比较是否更改了set。然后做比较，我有看起来像的方法

private void findMatchingValues(Object oldInstance, Object newInstance, ActivityEntry entry) {
    try {

        Class oldClass = oldInstance.getClass();
        for (Field someField : oldClass.getDeclaredFields()) {
            if (someField.isAnnotationPresent(AuditCompare.class)) {

                String name = someField.getAnnotation(AuditCompare.class).name();
                name = name.equals("") ? someField.getName() : name;

                Method method = oldClass.getDeclaredMethod(getGetterName(name));

                if(someField.getAnnotation(AuditCompare.class).compareBy().equals(AuditCompare.CompareType.count)) {
                    int oldSize = getCollectionCount(oldInstance, method);
                    int newSize = getCollectionCount(newInstance, method);
                    if (oldSize != newSize) entry.addChangeEntry(name, oldSize, newSize);

                } else {
                    Object oldValue = getObjectValue(oldInstance, method);
                    Object newValue = getObjectValue(newInstance, method);
                    if (!oldValue.equals(newValue)) entry.addChangeEntry(name, oldValue, newValue);
                }
            }
        }

    } catch (NoSuchMethodException e) {
        throw new RuntimeException(e);
    }
}