I think there is a good explanation on why each of these are vital techniques under your belt in a book called Java Concurrency In Practice by Brian Goetz. He makes one point very clear - you must use the same lock "EVERYWHERE" to protect the state of your object. Synchronised method and synchronising on an object often go hand in hand. E.g. Vector synchronises all its methods. If you have a handle to a vector object and are going to do "put if absent" then merely Vector synchronising its own individual methods isn't going to protect you from corruption of state. You need to synchronise using synchronised (vectorHandle). This will result in the SAME lock being acquired by every thread which has a handle to the vector and will protect overall state of the vector. This is called client side locking. We do know as a matter of fact vector does synchronised (this) / synchronises all its methods and hence synchronising on the object vectorHandle will result in proper synchronisation of vector objects state. Its foolish to believe that you are thread safe just because you are using a thread safe collection. This is precisely the reason ConcurrentHashMap explicitly introduced putIfAbsent method - to make such operations atomic.

总之

Synchronising at method level allows client side locking. If you have a private lock object - it makes client side locking impossible. This is fine if you know that your class doesn't have "put if absent" type of functionality. If you are designing a library - then synchronising on this or synchronising the method is often wiser. Because you are rarely in a position to decide how your class is going to be used. Had Vector used a private lock object - it would have been impossible to get "put if absent" right. The client code will never gain a handle to the private lock thus breaking the fundamental rule of using the EXACT SAME LOCK to protect its state. Synchronising on this or synchronised methods do have a problem as others have pointed out - someone could get a lock and never release it. All other threads would keep waiting for the lock to be released. So know what you are doing and adopt the one that's correct. Someone argued that having a private lock object gives you better granularity - e.g. if two operations are unrelated - they could be guarded by different locks resulting in better throughput. But this i think is design smell and not code smell - if two operations are completely unrelated why are they part of the SAME class? Why should a class club unrelated functionalities at all? May be a utility class? Hmmmm - some util providing string manipulation and calendar date formatting through the same instance?? ... doesn't make any sense to me at least!!

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

在c#和Java阵营中似乎有不同的共识。我看到的大多数Java代码使用:

// apply mutex to this instance
synchronized(this) {
    // do work here
}

而大多数c#代码选择了更安全的:

// instance level lock object
private readonly object _syncObj = new object();

...

// apply mutex to private instance level field (a System.Object usually)
lock(_syncObj)
{
    // do work here
}

c#语言当然更安全。如前所述，不能从实例外部对锁进行恶意/意外访问。Java代码也有这种风险，但随着时间的推移，Java社区似乎倾向于稍微不那么安全，但稍微更简洁的版本。

这并不是对Java的挖苦，只是我在这两种语言上工作的经验的反映。

这取决于你想做的任务，但我不会用它。此外，检查您想要完成的线程保存是否不能首先通过同步(此)来完成?API中也有一些不错的锁，可能会帮助到你:)

这里已经说过，同步块可以使用用户定义的变量作为锁对象，当同步函数只使用“this”时。当然，你也可以对函数中需要同步的部分进行操作。

但是每个人都说synchronized函数和block之间没有区别，block覆盖了使用“this”作为锁对象的整个函数。这是不对的，不同的是字节码，将在这两种情况下产生。在同步块使用的情况下，应该分配本地变量，其中包含引用“this”。因此，我们会得到一个更大的函数(如果你只有几个函数，这就无关紧要了)。

你可以在这里找到更详细的解释: http://www.artima.com/insidejvm/ed2/threadsynchP.html

同步块的使用也不好，原因如下:

synchronized关键字在一个方面非常有限:当退出一个同步块时，所有等待该锁的线程都必须被解除阻塞，但只有其中一个线程可以获得锁;所有其他人都看到锁已被占用，并返回阻塞状态。这不仅仅是浪费了大量的处理周期:为解除线程阻塞而进行的上下文切换通常还涉及从磁盘调出内存，这是非常非常昂贵的。

关于这方面的更多细节，我建议你阅读这篇文章: http://java.dzone.com/articles/synchronized-considered

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。