避免使用synchronized(this)作为锁定机制:这会锁定整个类实例，并可能导致死锁。在这种情况下，重构代码以只锁定特定的方法或变量，这样整个类就不会被锁定。同步可以在方法级别内使用。 下面的代码展示了如何锁定一个方法，而不是使用synchronized(this)。

   public void foo() {
if(operation = null) {
    synchronized(foo) { 
if (operation == null) {
 // enter your code that this method has to handle...
          }
        }
      }
    }

简单的回答:您必须了解其中的区别，并根据代码做出选择。

Long answer: In general I would rather try to avoid synchronize(this) to reduce contention but private locks add complexity you have to be aware of. So use the right synchronization for the right job. If you are not so experienced with multi-threaded programming I would rather stick to instance locking and read up on this topic. (That said: just using synchronize(this) does not automatically make your class fully thread-safe.) This is a not an easy topic but once you get used to it, the answer whether to use synchronize(this) or not comes naturally.

我将分别讨论每一点。

Some evil code may steal your lock (very popular this one, also has an "accidentally" variant) I'm more worried about accidentally. What it amounts to is that this use of this is part of your class' exposed interface, and should be documented. Sometimes the ability of other code to use your lock is desired. This is true of things like Collections.synchronizedMap (see the javadoc). All synchronized methods within the same class use the exact same lock, which reduces throughput This is overly simplistic thinking; just getting rid of synchronized(this) won't solve the problem. Proper synchronization for throughput will take more thought. You are (unnecessarily) exposing too much information This is a variant of #1. Use of synchronized(this) is part of your interface. If you don't want/need this exposed, don't do it.

如果你已经决定:

你要做的就是锁定目标 当前对象;而且 你想要 锁定粒度小于 整体方法;

那么我就不认为synchronizezd是一个禁忌。

Some people deliberately use synchronized(this) (instead of marking the method synchronized) inside the whole contents of a method because they think it's "clearer to the reader" which object is actually being synchronized on. So long as people are making an informed choice (e.g. understand that by doing so they're actually inserting extra bytecodes into the method and this could have a knock-on effect on potential optimisations), I don't particularly see a problem with this. You should always document the concurrent behaviour of your program, so I don't see the "'synchronized' publishes the behaviour" argument as being so compelling.

至于应该使用哪个对象的锁的问题，我认为在当前对象上同步并没有什么错，如果这是你所做的逻辑所期望的，以及你的类通常是如何被使用的。例如，对于集合，逻辑上期望锁定的对象通常是集合本身。

这要视情况而定。 如果只有一个或多个共享实体。

在这里查看完整的工作示例

简单介绍一下。

线程和可共享实体 多个线程可以访问同一个实体，例如多个connectionThreads共享一个messageQueue。由于线程并发运行，可能会有一个数据被另一个覆盖的机会，这可能是一个混乱的情况。 因此，我们需要某种方法来确保可共享实体一次只能被一个线程访问。(并发)。

同步块 Synchronized()块是一种确保可共享实体并发访问的方法。 首先，打个小比方 假设有两个人P1, P2(线程)一个盥洗室(可共享实体)，有一扇门(锁)。 现在我们想让一个人一次使用脸盆。 一种方法是在P1锁门的时候P2等待P1完成他的工作 P1打开门 那么只有p1可以使用脸盆。

语法。

synchronized(this)
{
  SHARED_ENTITY.....
}

"this" provided the intrinsic lock associated with the class (Java developer designed Object class in such a way that each object can work as monitor). Above approach works fine when there are only one shared entity and multiple threads (1: N). N shareable entities-M threads Now think of a situation when there is two washbasin inside a washroom and only one door. If we are using the previous approach, only p1 can use one washbasin at a time while p2 will wait outside. It is wastage of resource as no one is using B2 (washbasin). A wiser approach would be to create a smaller room inside washroom and provide them one door per washbasin. In this way, P1 can access B1 and P2 can access B2 and vice-versa.

washbasin1;  
washbasin2;

Object lock1=new Object();
Object lock2=new Object();

  synchronized(lock1)
  {
    washbasin1;
  }

  synchronized(lock2)
  {
    washbasin2;
  }

在这里查看更多关于Threads---->的信息

concurrent包极大地降低了线程安全代码的复杂性。我只有一些轶事证据，但我所见过的大多数synchronized(x)工作似乎都是重新实现Lock、Semaphore或Latch，但使用的是较低级别的监视器。

考虑到这一点，使用这些机制中的任何一种进行同步都类似于对内部对象进行同步，而不是泄露锁。这是非常有益的，因为您可以绝对确定通过两个或多个线程控制进入监视器的条目。